Style-based refinement of dynamic software architectures

Proceedings - Fourth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA 2004)

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 155-164

  Baresi, Luciano ^a   Heckel, Reiko ^b   Thöne, Sebastian ^b   Varró, Dániel ^c  

^a POLITECNICO DI MILANO   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PADERBORN   (Germany)

^c BUDAPEST UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMICS   (Hungary)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARCHITECTURAL MODELS; DYNAMIC ARCHITECTURES; RUN-TIME CONFIGURATION; SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURES;

CONSTRAINT THEORY; GRAPH THEORY; MATHEMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS; MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS; PROBLEM SOLVING; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 4944246755     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/WICSA.2004.1310699     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (28)

1. M. Abi-Antoun and N. Medvidovic. Enabling the refinement of a software architecture into a design. In Proc. UML 99 - The Unified Modeling Language, volume 1723 of LNCS, pages 17-31. Springer, 1999.
2. G. D. Abowd, R. Allen, and D. Garlan. Using style to understand descriptions of software architectures. ACM Software Engineering Notes, 18(5):9-20, 1993.
3. R. Allen. A Formal Approach to Software Architecture. PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 1997.
4. L. Baresi, R. Heckel, S. Thöne, and D. Varró. Specification of generic and SOA-specific style. www.upb.de/cs/ ag-engels/ag_engl/People/ Thoene/MRDSA.
5. L. Baresi, R. Heckel, S. Thöne, and D. Varró. Modeling and validation of service-oriented architectures: Application vs. style. In Proc. ESEC/FSE 03 European Software Engineering Conference and ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 68-77. ACM Press, 2003.
6. D. Batory, J. N. Sarvela, and A. Rauschmayer. Scaling step-wise refinement. In Proc. ICSE 2003 - Int. Conference on Software Engineering, pages 187-197. IEEE, 2003.
7. T. Bolusset and F. Oquendo. Formal refinement of software architectures based on rewriting logic. In Proc. RCS 02 Int. Workshop on Refinement of Critical Systems, 2002. www-lsr.imag.fr/zb2002/.
8. C. Canal, E. Pimentel, and J. M. Troya. Specification and refinement of dynamic software architectures. In Proc. WICSA1, First Working IFIP Conference, on Software Architecture, volume 140 of IFIP Conference Proceedings, pages 107-126. Kluwer, 1999.
9. A. Corradini, U. Montanari, and F. Rossi. Graph processes. Fundamenta Informaticae, 26(3,4):241-265, 1996.
10. M. Denford, T. O'Neill, and J. Leaney. Architecture-based design of computer based systems. In Proc. StraW03, Int. Workshop From Software Requirements to Architectures, 2003. se.uvaterloo.ca/~straw03/.
11. H. Ehrig, G. Engels, H.-J. Kreowski, and G. Rozenberg, editors. Handbook on Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, volume 2: Applications, Languages and Tools. World Scientific, 1999.
12. H. Ehrig, M. Pfender, and H. Schneider. Graph grammars: an algebraic approach. In 14th Annual IEEE Symposium on Switching and Automata Theory, pages 167-180. IEEE, 1973.
13. G. Engels, J. Hausmann, R. Heckel, and S. Sauer. Dynamic meta modeling: A graphical approach to the operational semantics of behavioral diagrams in UML. In Proc. UML 2000 - The Unified Modeling Language, volume 1939 of LNCS, pages 323-337. Springer, 2000.
14. D. Garlan. Style-based refinement for software architecture. In Proc. ISAW-2, nnd Int. Software Architecture Workshop on SIGSOFT '96, pages 72-75. ACM Press, 1996.
15. R. Heckel, G. Engels, H. Ehrig, and G. Taentzer. A view-based approach to system modelling based on open graph transformation systems. In [11].
16. D. Hirsch. Graph transformation models for software architecture styles. PhD thesis, Departamento de Computación, Universidad de Buenos Aires, 2003.
17. D. Hirsch and U. Montanari. Synchronized hyperedge replacement with name mobility. In Proc. CONCUR 2001 - Concurrency Theory, volume 2154 of LNCS, pages 121-136. Springer, 2001.
18. D. Le Métayer. Software architecture styles as graph grammars. In Proc. 4th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, volume 216 of ACM Software Engineering Notes, pages 15-23. ACM Press, 1996.
19. D. Luckham, J. Kenney, L. Augustin, J. Vera, D. Bryan, and W. Mann. Specification and analysis of system architecture using rapide. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(4):336-355, 1995.
20. th European Software Engineering Conference, volume 989 of LNCS, pages 137-153. Springer, 1995.
21. M. Moriconi, X. Qian, and R. A. Riemenschneider. Correct architecture refinement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(4):356-372, 1995.
22. Object Management Group. Model-Driven Architecture, www.omg.org/mda/.
23. A. Schmidt and D. Varró. CheckVML: A tool for model checking visual modeling languages. In Proc. UML 2003 - The Unified Modeling Language, volume 2863 of LNCS, pages 92-95, 2003.
24. A. Schürr, A. Winter, and A. Zündorf. The PROGRES approach: Language and environment. In [11].
25. M. Shaw and D. Garlan. Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Prentice-Hall, 1996.
26. G. Taentzer, M. Goedicke, and T. Meyer. Dynamic change management by distributed graph transformation: Towards configurable distributed systems. In Proc. TAGT'98 - Theory and Application of Graph Transformations, volume 1764 of LNCS, pages 179-193. Springer, 2000.
27. D. Varró. Towards symbolic analysis of visual modeling languages. In Proc. GT-VMT 2002 - Int. Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques, volume 72 of ENTCS, pages 57-70. Elsevier, 2002.
28. M. Wermelinger and J. L. Fiadero. A graph transformation approach to software architecture reconfiguration. Science of Computer Programming, 44(2):133-155, 2002.