Verification of architectural refactorings by rule extraction

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 4961 LNCS, Issue , 2008, Pages 347-361

  Bisztray, Dénes ^a   Heckel, Reiko ^a   Ehrig, Hartmut ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

CSP; Graph transformation; Refactoring; Service oriented architecture; UML

Indexed keywords

ACTIVITY DIAGRAM (AD); ARCHITECTURAL MODELING; COMPONENT-BASED; CONFERENCES (CHEMICAL INDUSTRY); DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES; EUROPEAN; HEIDELBERG (CO); INTERNATIONAL (CO); INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES; LARGE SYSTEMS; MODEL-DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT (MDD); REFACTORING; REFACTORINGS; RULE EXTRACTION; SEMANTIC DOMAINS; SEMANTIC RELATIONS; SERVICE-ORIENTED; SOFTWARE-QUALITY; TARGET MODELS;

CANNING; GRAPHIC METHODS; INFORMATION THEORY; SEMANTICS; SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS; UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION;

EID: 47249165256     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-78743-3_26     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (24)

1. Allen, R., Douence, R., Garlan, D.: Specifying and Analyzing Dynamic Software Architectures. In: Astesiano, E. (ed.) FASE 1998. LNCS, vol. 1382, Springer, Heidelberg (1998)
2. Bisztray, D., Heckel, R.: Rule-level verification of business process trans-formations using csp. In: Proc. of 6th International Workshop on Graph Transformations and Visual Modeling Techniques (GTVMT 2007) (2007)
3. Bisztray, D.: Verification of architectural refactoring rules. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, University of Leicester (2008), http://www.cs.le.ac.uk/people/dab24/refactoring-techrep.pdf
4. Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. EATCS Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
5. Engels, G., Heckel, R., Küster, J.M.: Rule-based specification of behavioral consistency based on the UML meta model. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
6. Engels, G., Küster, J.M., Groenewegen, L., Heckel, R.: A methodology for specifying and analyzing consistency of object-oriented behavioral models. In: Gruhn, V. (ed.) Proc. European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC/FSE 2001), Vienna, Austria. LNCS, vol. 1301, pp. 327-343. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
7. Fowler, M., Beck, K., Brant, J., Opdyke, W., Roberts, D.: Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (1999)
8. Formal Systems Europe Ltd. FDR2 User Manual (2005), http://www.fsel.com/ documentation/fdr2/html/index.html
9. Hirsch, D., Inverardi, P., Montanari, U.: Graph grammars and constraint solving for software architecture styles. In: ISAW 1998: Proceedings of the third international workshop on Software architecture, pp. 69-72. ACM Press, New York (1998)
10. Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1985)
11. Laertius, D.: Lives of Eminent Philosophers, vol. 2. Loeb Classical Library (January 1925)
12. Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P.: Object invariants in dynamic contexts. In: Odersky, M. (ed.) ECOOP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3086, pp. 491-516. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
13. Mens, T., Demeyer, S., Janssens, D.: Formalising behaviour preserving program transformations. In: Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Kreowski, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2505, pp. 286-301. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
14. Massoni, T., Gheyi, R., Borba, P.: An approach to invariant-based program refactoring. In: Software Evolution through Transformations 2006, Electronic Communications of the EASST (2006)
15. Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Dynamic structure in software architectures. In: SIGSOFT 1996: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering, pp. 3-14. ACM Press, New York (1996)
16. OMG. Unified Modeling Language, version 2.1.1 (2006), http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htm
17. Schürr, A.: Specification of graph translators with triple graph grammars. In: Mayr, E.W., Schmidt, G., Tinhofer, G. (eds.) WG 1994. LNCS, vol. 903, pp. 151-163. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)
18. Selic, B.: Using uml for modeling complex real-time systems. In: Müller, F., Bestavros, A. (eds.) LCTES 1998. LNCS, vol. 1474, pp. 250-260. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)
19. Sunyé, G., Pollet, D., Le Traon, Y., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Refactoring uml models (2001)
20. Taentzer, G., Goedicke, M., Meyer, T.: Dynamic change management by distributed graph transformation: Towards configurable distributed systems. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) TAGT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1764, pp. 179-193. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
21. Tiger Developer Team. Tiger EMF Transformer (2007), http://www.tfs.cs.tu- berlin.de/emftrans
22. Varró, D.: Model transformation by example. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 410-424. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
23. Wirsing, M., Clark, A., Gilmore, S., Hölzl, M., Knapp, A., Koch, N., Schroeder, A.: Semantic-Based Development of Service-Oriented Systems. In: Najm, E., Pradat-Peyre, J.-F., Donzeau-Gouge, V.V. (eds.) FORTE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4229, pp. 24-45. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
24. Wermelinger, M., Fiadeiro, J.L.: A graph transformation approach to software architecture reconfiguration. Sci. Comput. Program. 44(2), 133-155 (2002)