Architecting in software ecosystems: Interface translucence as an enabler for scalable collaboration

ACM International Conference Proceeding Series

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 65-72

  Cataldo, Marcelo ^a   Herbsleb, James D ^a  

^a Carnegie Mellon University   (United States)

Author keywords

awareness; collaboration; interface translucence; modularity; software architecture; software ecosystems

Indexed keywords

AWARENESS; COLLABORATION; INTERFACE TRANSLUCENCE; MODULARITY; SOFTWARE ECOSYSTEMS;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; ECOSYSTEMS; SOFTWARE DESIGN; TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS; TRANSPARENCY;

SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE;

EID: 78149379951     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1842752.1842772     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (48)

1. Allen, R. and Garlan, D. 1997. A Formal Basis for Architectural Connection. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 6, 3 (Jul. 1997), 213-249. (Pubitemid 127449188)
2. Baldwin, C.Y. and Clark, K.B. 2000. Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. MIT Press, Boston, MA.
3. Bandi, R.K., et al. 2003. Predicting Maintenance Performance Using Object-Oriented Design Complexity Measures. IEEE Trans. on Software Eng., 29, 1 (Jan. 2003), 77-87.
4. Bass, L. and Berenbach, B. 2008. Leadership and Management in Software Architecture (LMSA'08): a Report on an ICSE Workshop. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 33, 4 (Jul. 2008), 27-29.
5. th Int'l Conf. on Software Architectures (Mumbai, India, January 03-06, 2007). WICSA '07. IEEE Press, New York, NY, 17-26.
6. nd Edition. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
7. th Int'l Software Product Line Conf. (San Francisco, CA, August 24-28, 2009). SPLC '09. ACM, New York, NY, 111-129.
8. Capilla, R. et al. 2010. Viability for codifying and documenting architectural design decisions with tool support. J. Soft. Maint. Evol.: Res. Pract., 22, 2 (Mar. 2010), 81-119.
9. Carlile, P. 2002. Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development. Organization Science, 13, 4 (Jul. 2002), 442-455.
10. Cataldo, M. and Nambiar, S. 2010. The Impact of Geographic Distribution and the Nature of Technical Coupling on the Quality of Global Software Development Projects. Forthcoming in Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice.
11. Cataldo, M. and Herbsleb, J.D. 2010. Coordination Breakdowns and their Impact on Development Productivity and Software Failures. Technical Report CMU-ISR-10-104, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
12. Cataldo, M. et al. 2006. Identification of Coordination Requirements: Implications for the Design of Collaboration and Awareness Tools. In Proc. of the Conf. on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Banff, Canada, Nov. 04-08, 2006). CSCW'06. ACM, New York, NY, 353-362. (Pubitemid 47112424)
13. Cataldo, M., et al. 2007. On Coordination Mechanism in Global Software Development. In Proc. of the Int'l Conf. on Global Software Engineering (Munich, Germany, August 27-30, 2007). ICGSE'07. IEEE Press, New York, NY, 71-80.
14. Cataldo, M, et al. 2008. Socio-Technical Congruence: A Framework for Assessing the Impact of Technical and Work Dependencies on Software Development Productivity. In Proc. of the 2nd Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (Kaiserslautern, Germany October 9-10, 2008). ESEM'08. ACM, New York, NY, 2-11.
15. Cataldo, M. et al. 2009. Technical Dependencies, Work Dependencies and their Impact of Failures. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 35, 6 (Nov. 2009), 864-878.
16. Cataldo, M. et al. 2010. The Impact of Interface Complexity on Failures: An Empirical Analysis and Implications for Tool Design. Technical Report CMU-ISR-10-101, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
17. Curtis, B. et al. 1988. A field study of software design process for large systems. Communications of ACM, 31, 11 (Nov. 1988), 1268-1287.
18. Dekel, U. and Herbsleb J.D. 2009. Improving API Documentation Usability with Knowledge Pushing. In Proc. of Int'l Conf. on Software Engineering (Vancouver, Canada, May 16-24, 2009). ICSE'09. ACM, New York, NY, 320-330.
19. de Souza, C.R.B. et al. 2003. Breaking the Code: Moving between Private and Public Work in Collaborative Software Development. In Proc. of the Int'l Conf. on Supporting Group Work (Sanibel Island, FL, Nov. 9-12, 2003). GROUP'03. ACM, New York, NY, 105-114.
20. th Conf. on Foundations of Software Engineering (Newport Beach, CA, Nov.1-6, 2004). FSE'04. ACM, New York, NY, 221-230.
21. Di Muro, E. 2005. A Software Architecture for Translucent Replication. In Proc. of the 2nd Int'l doctoral symposium on Middleware (Grenoble, France, Nov. 28-Dec. 2, 2005). ACM, New York, NY, 1-5.
22. Ebert, C. and Jones, C. 2009. Embedded Software: Facts, Figures and Future. IEEE Comp., 42, 4 (Apr. 2009), 42-52.
23. Ebling, M.R. 1998. Translucent Cache Management for Mobile Computing. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
24. Ellis, B. et al. 2007. The Factory Design Pattern in API Design: A Usability Evaluation. In Proc. of Int'l Conf. on Software Engineering (Minneapolis, MN, May 20-26, 2007). ICSE'07. ACM, New York, NY, 302-313.
25. Feller, P.H. et al. 2009. System Architecture Virtual Integration: An Industrial Case Study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2009-TR-017, SEI, Carnegie Mellon University.
26. Garlan, D. et al. 1997. Acme: An Architecture Description Interchange Language. In Proc. of the Conf. of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collab. Research (Toronto, Canada, November 10-13, 1997). IBM Press, Indianapolis, IN, 7-17.
27. Gill, N.S. and Grover, P.S. 2004. Few Important Considerations for Deriving Interface Complexity Metrics for Component-based Systems. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 29, 2 (Mar. 2004), 4-8.
28. Grinter, R.E. et al. 1999. The Geography of Coordination Dealing with Distance in R&D Work. In Proc. of the Conf. on Supporting Group Work (Phoenix, AZ, Nov. 14-17, 1999). GROUP'99. ACM, New York, NY, 306-315.
29. Gutwin, C. et al. 2004. Group Awareness in Distributed Software Development. In Proc. of the Conf. on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Chicago, IL, Nov. 6-11, 2004). CSCW'04. ACM, New York, NY, 72-81. (Pubitemid 40928504)
30. Henning, M. 2009. API Design Matters. Communications of the ACM, 52, 5 (May 2009), 46-56.
31. Herbsleb, J.D.and Moitra, D. 2001. Global Software Development. IEEE Software, 18, 2 (Mar. 2001), 16-20.
32. Herbsleb, J.D. and Grinter, R.E. 1999. Architecture, Coordination and Distance: Conway's Law and Beyond. IEEE Software, 16, 5 (Sep. 1999), 63-70.
33. Jansen, A. and Bosch, J. 2005. Software Architecture as a Set of Architectural Design Decisions. In Proc. of the 5th Int'l Conf. on Software Architectures (Pittsburgh, PA, Nov. 6-10, 2005). WICSA '05. IEEE Press, New York, NY, 109-120. (Pubitemid 46401931)
34. Kiczales, G. and Mezini, M. 2005. Aspect-Oriented Programming and Modular Reasoning. In Proc. of the Int'l Conf. on Software Engineering (St. Louis, MO, May 15-21, 2005). ICSE'05. ACM, New York, NY, 49-58.
35. Kruchten, P. et al. 2009. The Decision View's Role in Software Architecture Practice. IEEE Software, 26, 2 (Mar. 2009), 36-42.
36. Lee, L. and Kruchten, P. 2008. Customizing the Capture of Software Architectural Design Decisions. In Proc. 21st Canadian Conf. on Electrical and Computer Engineering (Niagara Falls, Canada). IEEE Press, New York, NY, 693-698.
37. MacCormack, A. and Verganti, R. (2003). Managing the Sources of Uncertainty: Matching Process and Context in Software Development. J. of Prod. Innov. Mgmt, 20, 3 (Mar. 2003), 217-232.
38. MacCormack, A. et al 2008. Exploring the Duality between Product and Organizational Architectures: A Test of the Mirroring Hypothesis. Working Paper 08-039, Harvard Business School.
39. Mahmood, S. and Lai, R. 2008. A Complexity Measure for UML Component-based System Specification. Software: Practice and Experience, 38, 2 (Feb. 2008), 117-134. (Pubitemid 351271124)
40. Northrop, L. 2006. Ultra-Large-Scale System: The Software Challenge of the Future. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University Press, Pittsburgh, PA.
41. Olson, G.M. and Olson, J.S. 2000. Distance Matters. Human- Computer Interaction, 15, 2 & 3 (2000), 139-178.
42. Parnas, D.L. 1972. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of ACM, 15, 12 (Dec. 1972), 1053-1058.
43. 5th ACM symposium on Operating Systems Principles (Copper Mountain, CO, December 3-6, 1995). SIGOPS'95. ACM, New York, NY, 79-95.
44. Robillard, M.P. 2009. What Makes APIs Hard to Learn? Answers from Developers. IEEE Software, 26, 6 (Nov. 2009), 27-34.
45. Simon, H.A. 1962. The Architecture of Complexity. Proc. Of the American Phil. Society, 106, 6 (Dec. 1962), 467-482.
46. Storey, M.A. et al. 2007. How Programmers can Turn Comments into Waypoints for Code Navigation. In Proc. of the Int'l Conf. on Soft. Maintenance (Paris, France, October 2-5, 2007). ICSM'07. ACM, New York, NY.
47. Sullivan, K.J. et al. 2001. The Structure and Value of Modularity in Software Design. In Proc. of the Int'l Conf. on Foundations of Software Engineering (Vienna, Austria, Sep. 10-14, 2001). FSE'01. ACM, New York, NY, 99-108. (Pubitemid 35466915)
48. Taylor, R.N et al. 2009. Software Architecture: Foundations, Theory and Practice. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.