Presentation of an executable model for evaluation of software architecture using blackboard technique and formal models

  • Authors

    • Fatemeh Majidi
    • Ali Harounabadi
    2015-01-16
    https://doi.org/10.14419/jacst.v4i1.3982

  • Considering the promotion and complexities of software systems and need to services for repair and updating, success of this system is extremely dependent to its architecture and design. Architectural techniques due to being used by the architectures frequently have specified effect on qualitative characteristics. If this effect is quantitative and measurable for each technique will enable the architect to have more care and convenience for evaluation of design and architectural designs. In this study, at first to show the structure and behavior of software architecture using blackboard technique, component diagram and unified modeling language activity diagram together with required data in relation to nonfunctional needs as stereotypes and labels were used. Later, upon converting the actual model to the formal model, requirements for system performance evaluation on the formal model is provided. Upon analyzing the results, it is observed that the offered method can evaluate the performance of software architecture based on blackboard technique at the design age.

  • References

    1. [1] L. Dobrica, E. Niemela, “A Survay on Software Architecture Analysis Methodsâ€, Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, Vol. 28: 7, (2002), pp. 638-653, Romania.

      [2] Technical Report IEEE, Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software Intensive Systems, IEEE Standards Department, the Architecture Working Group of the Software Engineering Committee, (2000), PP: 1471-2000.

      [3] P. Clements, L. Bass, D. Garlan, J. Ivers, R. Little, R. Nord, J. Stafford, Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond, Second Edition, Publication City/Country New Jersey, Addison Wesley, (2010).

      [4] Object Management Group (OMG), UML Profile for Reliability, Schedulability, Performance and Time Specification, (2002).

      [5] L. Wells, S. Christensen, L. M. Kristensen, K. H. Mortensen, “Simulation Based Performance Analysis of Web Serversâ€, Proceedings of the 9th international Workshop on Petri Nets and Performance Models (PNPM'01) IEEE Computer Society, Washington, USA, (2001), pp:59-68.

      [6] K. Fukuzawa, M. Saeki, “Evaluating Software Architecture By Coloured Petri Netsâ€, in SEKE02 14th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledg Engineering, Italy, (2002), pp:263-270.

      [7] R. G. Pettit, H. Gomaa, “Improving the Reliability of Concurrent Object Oriented Software Designsâ€, proceeding of the 9th IEEE international workshop on object oriented real time dependable systems, (2004).

      [8] E. Gyarmati, P. Strakendal, Software Performance Prediction using SPE, Master Thesis Software Engineering, Department of Software Engineering and Computer Science Blekinge Institute of Technology, Ronneby Sweden, (2002).

      [9] S. Balsamo, M. Marzolla, R. Mirandola, “Efficient Performance models in Component-Based Software Engineeringâ€, Proce. Of the 32nd Euromicro Conference on Software Enginnering and Advanced Applications, (2006), pp: 64-71.

      [10] S. Merseguer, S. Bernardi, J. Campos, S. Donatelli, “A Compositional Semantics for NML State Machines Aimed at performance Evaluationâ€, proce. Of the 6th International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems, (2002), pp: 295-302.

      [11] J. Merseguer, J. Campos, E. Mena, “Analysing Internet Software Retrieval System: Modeling and Performance Comparisonâ€, Wireless Networks: the Journal of Mobile Computation and Information, vol. 9: 3, (2003), pp.223-238.

      [12] Object Management Group (OMG) Unified Modeling Language (UML). Version 2.0, (2005).

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Majidi, F., & Harounabadi, A. (2015). Presentation of an executable model for evaluation of software architecture using blackboard technique and formal models. Journal of Advanced Computer Science & Technology, 4(1), 23-31. https://doi.org/10.14419/jacst.v4i1.3982