A Rationale-based Model for Architecture Design Reasoning

More documents

Recommendations

Info

List of Figures 2.1 Conceptual Model of Architecture Description [70] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.1 IBIS Design Rationale Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.2 PHI Issues Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.3 REMAP Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.4 An Example of QOC Design Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.5 A DRL Decision Graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.6 A RATSpeak Design Rationale Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.7 A Design Rationale Traceability Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 6.1 An Architecture Rationale Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 6.2 A Causal Relationship between AEs and an AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 6.3 An AREL Diagram of a reporting sub-system, in UML . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 6.4 A Composition of Architecture Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 6.5 Components of Architecture Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 6.6 Illegitimate cyclic graph: (a) AE-cyclic case (b) AR-cyclic case . . . . . . . 94 6.7 (a) Cyclic Design (b) Acyclic Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 6.8 AE and AR evolution support in eAREL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 6.9 ≪AE≫ Stereotype to extend Architecture Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 xiii
6.10 ≪AR≫ and ≪AAR≫ Stereotypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 6.11 ≪ARtrace≫ Stereotype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 6.12 ≪AEsupersede≫ and ≪ARsupersede≫ Stereotypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 7.1 A Use Case of the EFT System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 7.2 Processing Services of the EFT System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 7.3 Decisions that Support Fault-resilient architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 7.4 Message Control Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 7.5 Intertwined Issues in the Architecture of MCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 7.6 General Payment Message Processing Sequence Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . 115 7.7 Decisions to Support Transaction Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 7.8 MCP Connection Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 7.9 Decisions to Support Centralised Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 7.10 Decisions to Idenify a Payment Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 7.11 Decisions to Architect Error Catching and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 8.1 Key Activities in Architecture Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 8.2 Risk Assessments of Alarm Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 9.1 Asynchronous message processing decision and its design impact . . . . . . 157 9.2 Details of the design rationale AR10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 9.3 Forward tracing for impact analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 9.4 Backward tracing for root-cause analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 9.5 (a) MAC processing (b) Superseded architecture element . . . . . . . . . . . 164 xiv
Page 1 and 2: A Rationale-based Model for Archite
Page 3 and 4: maintenance. These techniques can h
Page 5 and 6: Declaration This thesis contains no
Page 7 and 8: 2.2.6 DoD Architecture Framework .
Page 9 and 10: 5.4.6 Risk assessment in architectu
Page 11 and 12: 8.2 The architecture rationalisatio
Page 13: 12.2 Contributions . . . . . . . .
Page 17 and 18: 11.13A Process to Synchronise Chang
Page 19 and 20: 5.13 Design Rationale Helps Evaluat
Page 21 and 22: that architecture design is highly
Page 23 and 24: 1.2. Research motivations and resea
Page 25 and 26: 1.2. Research motivations and resea
Page 27 and 28: 1.4. Structure of the thesis the ch
Page 29 and 30: Part I Problem Analysis 10
Page 31 and 32: 2.1. Industry practice of design ra
Page 33 and 34: 2.2. Architecture frameworks and de
Page 43 and 44: Chapter 3 Related work in design ra
Page 45 and 46: 3.2. Why do we need design rational
Page 47 and 48: 3.2. Why do we need design rational
Page 49 and 50: 3.3. Existing methods for capturing
Page 57 and 58: 3.4. Other related studies 3.3.7 Qu
Page 59 and 60: 3.4. Other related studies evolutio
Page 61 and 62: 3.5. How well design rationale meth
Page 63 and 64: 3.5. How well design rationale meth
Page 65 and 66:
Chapter 4 Research methodology and
Page 67 and 68:
4.1. Software engineering research
Page 69 and 70:
4.2. The chosen research and valida
Page 71 and 72:
Part II Architecture Design Rationa
Page 73 and 74:
on a regular basis. Their inputs ha
Page 75 and 76:
5.1. Architecture rationale in the
Page 77 and 78:
5.2. Survey methodology data collec
Page 79 and 80:
5.3. Survey findings experience). I
Page 81 and 82:
5.3. Survey findings Table 5.1: Fre
Page 83 and 84:
5.3. Survey findings Business Goals
Page 85 and 86:
5.3. Survey findings 5.3.5 Document
Page 87 and 88:
5.3. Survey findings Table 5.8 summ
Page 89 and 90:
5.3. Survey findings We used Spearm
Page 91 and 92:
5.3. Survey findings previous desig
Page 93 and 94:
5.4. Discussion of findings Since t
Page 95 and 96:
5.4. Discussion of findings or cons
Page 97 and 98:
5.5. Limitations and use design rat
Page 99 and 100:
Part III The Representation and App
Page 101 and 102:
6.1. A conceptual model for design
Page 103 and 104:
6.2. Architecture Rationale and Ele
Page 105 and 106:
6.2. Architecture Rationale and Ele
Page 107 and 108:
6.3. Architecture elements Figure 6
Page 109 and 110:
6.4. Architecture rationale Figure
Page 111 and 112:
6.4. Architecture rationale • ris
Page 113 and 114:
6.4. Architecture rationale depicts
Page 115 and 116:
6.5. The extended AREL To prevent c
Page 117 and 118:
6.6. A UML representation of AREL a
Page 119 and 120:
6.6. A UML representation of AREL a
Page 121 and 122:
6.7. AREL usability AE by ≪AEsupe
Page 123 and 124:
6.8. Summary The AREL model is exte
Page 125 and 126:
7.1. The EFT system reasoning, a co
Page 127 and 128:
7.1. The EFT system The processing
Page 129 and 130:
7.1. The EFT system not chosen beca
Page 131 and 132:
7.1. The EFT system Figure 7.5: Int
Page 133 and 134:
7.1. The EFT system sequence checki
Page 135 and 136:
7.1. The EFT system Figure 7.7: Dec
Page 137 and 138:
7.1. The EFT system Therefore, in a
Page 139 and 140:
7.1. The EFT system Figure 7.10: De
Page 141 and 142:
7.2. An empirical study to validate
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
7.3. Summary The case study is spec
Page 153 and 154:
8.1. Background Based on these assu
Page 155 and 156:
8.2. The architecture rationalisati
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
8.3. Other applications of ARM As d
Page 165 and 166:
8.3. Other applications of ARM Figu
Page 167 and 168:
8.3. Other applications of ARM area
Page 169 and 170:
Chapter 9 Architecture rationale an
Page 171 and 172:
9.1. Background 9.1 Background In t
Page 173 and 174:
9.2. Traceability of architecture r
Page 175 and 176:
9.4. AREL and eAREL traceability ap
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Chapter 10 Architecture decision de
Page 187 and 188:
10.1. Background 10.1.2 Introductio
Page 189 and 190:
10.2. Building a BBN to represent a
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
10.3. Reasoning about change impact
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
10.5. Summary design object may cau
Page 211 and 212:
11.1. Capturing architecture design
Page 213 and 214:
11.1. Capturing architecture design
Page 215 and 216:
11.2. Checking AREL models Figure 1
Page 217 and 218:
11.3. Tracing AREL models Figure 11
Page 219 and 220:
11.4. Analysing AREL with BBN • S
Page 221 and 222:
11.5. Limitations Figure 11.13: A P
Page 223 and 224:
Chapter 12 Conclusions 12.1 Summary
Page 225 and 226:
12.2. Contributions reasoning metho
Page 227 and 228:
12.2. Contributions implementations
Page 229 and 230:
12.3. Future work architecture deci
Page 231 and 232:
12.3. Future work to examine the co
Page 233 and 234:
BIBLIOGRAPHY [10] B. W. Boehm, Soft
Page 235 and 236:
BIBLIOGRAPHY [37] A. Eden and R. Ka
Page 237 and 238:
BIBLIOGRAPHY [62] J. D. Herbsleb an
Page 239 and 240:
BIBLIOGRAPHY [89] N. Lassing, D. Ri
Page 241 and 242:
BIBLIOGRAPHY [115] D. L. Parnas,
Page 243 and 244:
BIBLIOGRAPHY [142] Z. Simsek and J.
Page 245 and 246:
BIBLIOGRAPHY [167] W. F. Tichy, N.
Page 247 and 248:
Appendix A AREL Tool User Manual 1
Page 249 and 250:
4.1 AREL Check Model When the Check
Page 251 and 252:
4.2 AREL Model Tracing AREL model t
Page 253 and 254:
Figure 9 - result of downward trace
Page 255 and 256:
To initiate the graph’s creation,
Page 257 and 258:
onto the diagram 14 Assign values t
Page 259 and 260:
Useful Definitions The following ar
Page 261 and 262:
) Some projects only c) Not at all
Page 263 and 264:
19. I revisit architecture design d
Page 265 and 266:
Complaint Procedure If you have any
Page 267 and 268:
Privacy Protection Only investigato
Page 269 and 270:
B. Exploring design reasoning. 1. W
Page 271 and 272:
3. Why does the system use asynchro
Page 273 and 274:
C. General Comments on AREL Modelli
Page 275:
IEEE Computer Society Press. A. Tan
show all

A Rationale-based Model for Architecture Design Reasoning

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?