Skip to main content

A Key Technology Evaluation Case Study: Applying a New Middleware Architecture on the Enterprise Scale

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Engineering Distributed Objects

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1999))

Abstract

Decisions for key technologies, like middleware, for large scale projects are hard, because the impact and relevance of key technologies go beyond their core technological field. E.g., object-oriented middleware has its core in realizing distributed object calls. But choosing a technology and product also implies to adopt its services, tools, software architectures, object and component paradigms, etc. Moreover, legacy applications and several other key technologies have to be integrated. And since no middleware product serves all requirements in the enterprise context, various middleware products have to be integrated, too. Another key problem of middleware evaluation is, that often the studies have to be performed very early in a project.In this paper we try to tackle these problems and describe how we can communicate the outcomes - which come from a technical viewpoint - to the management and other non-experts in the technological field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. L. Bass, P. Clement, and R. Kazman. Software Architecture in Practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA, 1998. 17, 18, 24

    Google Scholar 

  2. P. Bengtsson and J. Bosch. Architecture level prediction of software maintenance. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Software Engineering (ICSE’99), Los Angeles, USA, 1999. 17, 24

    Google Scholar 

  3. A.W. Brown. Mastering the middleware muddle. IEEE Software, 16(4), 1999. 11, 24

    Google Scholar 

  4. F. Buschmann, R. Meunier, H. Rohnert, P. Sommerlad, and M. Stal. Patternorinented Software Architecture-A System of Patterns. J. Wiley and Sons Ltd., 1996. 24

    Google Scholar 

  5. E. Gamma, R. Helm, R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, 1994. 18

    Google Scholar 

  6. M. Goedicke, G. Neumann, and U. Zdun. Design and implementation constructs for the development of flexible, component-oriented software architectures.In Proceedings of 2nd International Symposium on Generative and Component-Based Software Engineering (GCSE’00), Erfurt, Germany, Oct.2000. 19

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. Goedicke and U. Zdun. Piecemeal migrating of a document archive system with an architectural pattern language. to appear, 2000. 19

    Google Scholar 

  8. N. Lassing, D. Rijsenbrij, and H. van Vliet. Towards a broader view on software architecture analysis of flexibility.In Proceedings of Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), Takamatsu, Japan, December 1999. 18, 24

    Google Scholar 

  9. I. T. Ltd. The orbix architecture, 1993. 12

    Google Scholar 

  10. M. Goedicke, G. Neumann, and U. Zdun. Object system layer. In Proceeding of EuroPlop 2000, Irsee, Germany, July 2000. 19

    Google Scholar 

  11. G. Neumann and U. Zdun. XOTcl, an object-oriented scripting language. In Proceedings of Tcl2k: The 7th USENIX Tcl/Tk Conference, Austin, Texas, USA, February 2000. 20

    Google Scholar 

  12. E. D. Nitto and D. S. Rosenblum. On the role of style in selecting middleware and underware.In Proceedings of the ICSE’99 Workshop on Engineering Distributed Objects, Los Angeles, USA, 1999. 24

    Google Scholar 

  13. G. S. Raj. A detailed comparison of CORBA, DCOM and Java/RMI. http://www.execpc.com/ gopalan/misc/compare.html, 1998. 24

  14. D. C. Schmidt, M. Stal, H. Rohnert, and F. Buschmann. Patterns for Concurrent and Distributed Objects.Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture. J. Wiley and Sons Ltd., 2000. 24

    Google Scholar 

  15. M. Shaw. Some patterns for software architecture. In J. Vl issides, J. C oplien, and N. Kerth, editors, Pattern Languages of Program Design 2, pages 271–294. Addison-Wesley, 1996. 24

    Google Scholar 

  16. O. Tallman and J. B. Kain. COM versus CORBA: A decision framework. Distributed Computing, Sep–Dec 1998. 24

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. Thompson. Avoiding a middleware muddle. IEEE Software, 14(6), 1997. 11, 25

    Google Scholar 

  18. S. Vinoski. Corba: Integrating diverse applications within distributed heterogeneos environments. IEEE Communications Magazine, 14(2), 1997. 15

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Goedicke, M., Zdun, U. (2001). A Key Technology Evaluation Case Study: Applying a New Middleware Architecture on the Enterprise Scale. In: Emmerich, W., Tai, S. (eds) Engineering Distributed Objects. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1999. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45254-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45254-0_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41792-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45254-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics