Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling Architecture Description Languages Using AML

  • Published:
Automated Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The language AML was designed to specify the semantics of architecture description languages, ADLs, especially ADLs describing architectures wherein the architecture itself evolves over time. Dynamic evolution concerns arise with considerable variation in time scale. One may constrain how a system may evolve by monitoring its development lifecycle. Another approach to such concerns involves limiting systems' construction primitives to those from appropriate styles. One may wish to constrain what implementations are appropriate; concerns for interface compatibility are then germane. And finally, one may want to constrain the ability of the architecture to be modified as it is running. AML attempts to circumscribe architectures in such a way that one may express all of these constraints without committing to which time scale will be used to enforce them. Example AML specifications of the C2 style and Acme are presented.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, R. 1997. A formal approach to software architecture. Ph.D. Thesis. Carnegie Mellon University CMU Tech. Report CMU-CS-97-144.

  • Booch, G., Jacobson, I., and Rumbaugh, J. 1997. The unified modeling language for Object-0Oriented development. Documentation Set. Rational Software Corporation.

  • Fickas, S. and Feather, M. 1995. Requirements monitoring in dynamic environments. In Proceedings of the Second IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, York, England, March, pp. 140-147.

  • Garlan, D., Monroe, R., and Wile, D. 1997. Acme: An architecture description interchange language. In Proceedings of CASCON '97. (See also: http//www.cs.cmu.edu/~acme/)

  • Garlan, D., Monroe, R., and Wile, D. 2000. Architectural descriptions of component-based systems. In G. Leavens and M. Sitaraman, editors, Foundations of Component-Based Systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, N. and Naryanaswamy, K. 1992. Software evolution through iterative prototyping. In ICSE, pp. 158-172.

  • Guttag, J. and Horning, J. 1986. Report on the Larch shared language. Science of Computer Programming, 6(2):103-134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudak, P. 1998. Acme HOT. Draft Report, Yale Computer Science.

  • Jackson, D. A lightweight object modelling notation. http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/~dnj/abstracts.html#alloy.

  • Luckham, D., Kenney, J., Augustin, L., Vera, J., Bryan, D., and Mann, W. 1995. Specification and analysis of system architecture using Rapide. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineereing, 21(4):336-355. (See also: http://anna.stanford.edu/rapide/).

    Google Scholar 

  • Magee, J. and Kramer, J. 1996. Dynamic structure in software architectures. In Proceeding of the ACM SIGSOFT '96: Fourth Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. San Francisco, CA, Oct., pp. 24-32.

  • Medvidovic, N. and Taylor, R.N. 2000. A classification and comparison framework for software architecture description languages. IEEE Transactions of Software Engineering, 26(1):70-93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moriconi, M., Qian, X., and Riemenschneider, R.A. 1995. Correct architecture refinement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(4):356-372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, N. 1996. Independent on-line monitoring of evolving systems. In ICSE 96, Berlin, Germany, pp. 134-143.

  • Monroe, R. 1998. Capturing software architecture design expertise with Armani. TR CMU-CS-98-163, Carnegie Mellon University. Revised October, 1999.

  • Monroe, R. 1999. Rapid development of custom software design environments. Ph.D. Dissertation. Carnegie Mellon University.

  • 0.html.

  • Robbins, J., Medvidovic, N., Redmiles, D., and Rosenblum, D. 1998. Integrating architecture description languages with a standard design method. In Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE Ô98, Kyoto, Japan), IEEE Computer Society Press, April 19–25, 1998, pp. 209-218.

  • Shaw, M., DeLine, R., Klein, D.V., Ross, T.L., Young, D.M., and Zelesnik, G. 1998. Abstractions for software architecture and tools to support them. IEEE Transactions of Software Engineering, 21(4):314-335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R.N., Medvidovic, N., Anderson, K., Whitehead, E.J., Robbins, J., Nies, K., Oreizy, P., and Dubrow, D. 1996. A component-and message-based architectural style for GUI software. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 22(6):390-406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wile, D. 1990. Adding relational abstraction to programming languages. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT International Workshop on Formal Methods in Software Development. Napa, CA, pp. 128-139.

  • Wile, D. 1999a. Web site. http://www.isi.edu/software-sciences/wile/home-page.html.

  • Wile, D. 1999b. AML: An architecture meta-language. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Automated Software Engineering. Cocoa Beach, FL, Oct.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Teknowledge Corp., 4640 Admiralty Way Suite 231, Marina del Ray, CA, 90292

    David Wile

Authors
  1. David Wile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wile, D. Modeling Architecture Description Languages Using AML. Automated Software Engineering 8, 63–88 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008763724785

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008763724785

Search

Navigation