Quality-driven software architecture composition

Journal of Systems and Software

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 269-284

  De Bruin, Hans ^a   Van Vliet, Hans ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING; GRAPH THEORY; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

FEATURE-SOLUTION (FS) GRAPH;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE;

EID: 0038521508     PISSN: 01641212     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0164-1212(02)00079-1     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Aksit M., Tekinerdogan B., Bergmans L. Achieving adaptability through separation and composition of concerns. Proceedings of ECOOP Workshop on Adaptability in Object-Oriented Software Development. 1996;12-23 Linz, Austria.
2. Bosch J. Design and Use of Software Architectures: Adopting and Evolving a Product-Line Approach. 2000;Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
3. Buckingham Shum S., Hammond N. Argumentation-based design rationale: What use at what cost? International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 40(4):1994;603-652.
4. Buhr R. Use case maps as architecture entities for complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 24(12):1998;1131-1155.
5. Buhr R., Casselman R. Use CASE Maps for Object-Oriented Systems. 1996;Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
6. de Bruin, H., 1999. A grey-box approach to component composition, In: Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.W. (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Symposium on Generative and Component-Based Software Engineering (GCSE'99), Erfurt, Germany, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), vol. 1799, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 195-209.
7. de Bruin H. BCOOPL: Basic concurrent object-oriented programming language. Software Practice and Experience. 30(8):2000;849-894.
8. de Bruin, H., van Vliet, H., 2001. Scenario-based generation and evaluation of software architectures. In: Bosch, J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Generative and Component-Based Software Engineering (GCSE'2001), Erfurt, Germany, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), vol. 2186, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 128-139.
9. de Bruin, H., van Vliet, H., Baida, Z., 2002. Documenting and analyzing a context sensitive design space. In: Bosch, J., Kuusela, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of 3rd Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA3), Montreal, Canada, pp. 127-141.
10. D'Souza D.F., Wills A.C. Objects, Components, and Frameworks with UML: The Catalysis Approach. Object Technology Series. 1998;Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
11. Garlan D., Allen R., Ockerbloom J. Architectural mismatch: Why reuse is so hard. IEEE Software. 12(6):1995;17-26.
12. Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., Peterson, S., 1990. Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Technical report, Software Engineering Institute.
13. Kiczales, G., Lamping, J., Mendhekar, A., Maeda, C., Lopes, C.V., Loingtier, J.-M., and Irwin, J., 1997. Aspect-oriented programming. In: Askit, M., Matsuoka, M. (Eds.), Proceeding of 11th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP'97), Finland, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), vol. 1241, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 220-242.
14. Klein M., Kazman R., Bass L., Carriere J., Barbacci M., Lipson H. Attribute-based architectural styles. Donohue P. Software Architecture. 1999;225-244 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
15. Lamsweerde, A. van 2000. Requirements engineering in the year 00: A research perspective. In: Conference Proceedings ICSE'00, ACM, Limerick, Ireland, pp. 5-19.
16. Liu, L., Yu, E., 2001. From requirements to architectural design: Using goal sand scenarios. In: ICSE'2001 Workshop 9, From Software Requirements to Architectures (STRAW'2001), ACM, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pp. 22-30.
17. Luckhalm D., Vera J. An event-based architectural description language. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 21(9):1995;717-734.
18. MacLean A., Young R.M., Bellotti V.M., Moran T.P. Questions, options and criteria: Elements of design space analysis. Human-Computer Interaction. 6(3 & 4):1991;201-250.
19. Medvidovic N., Taylor R.N. A classification and comparison frame work for software architecture description languages. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 26(1):2000;70-93.
20. Moran T., Carroll J. Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use. 1994;Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
21. Moriconi M., Qian X., Riemenschneider R. Correct architecture refinement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 21(4):1995;356-372.
22. Mylopoulos J., Chung L., Liao S., Wang H., Yu E. Exploring alternatives during requirements analysis. IEEE Software. 18(1):2001;92-96.