skip to main content
10.1145/2383276.2383308acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescompsystechConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Improving software quality by improving architecture management

Published:22 June 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

For a software-intensive system, software quality measures how well the software is designed and how well the software conforms to that design, whereas architecture of a software system is typically defined as the fundamental organization of the system embodied in its components, their relationships to each other and the environment, and the principles governing the system's design and evolution. Obviously, as long as there were no software systems, governing their architecture was no problem at all; when there were only small systems, governing their architecture became a mild problem; and now we have gigantic software systems, and governing their architecture has become an equally gigantic problem (to paraphrase Edsger Dijkstra). In this paper we propose a unified approach to the problem of governing (or managing) the knowledge about architecture of software systems and demonstrate by example its impact on a certain software project. First we postulate that only the holistic approach that supports continuous integration and verification for all system architectural artifacts is one worth taking. Next we demonstrate by example how a concrete large software project being developed in an agile approach is being perceived using the model in question

References

  1. S. Beydeda and V. Gruhn, State of the art in testing components, Quality Software, 2003. Proceedings. Third International Conference on.IEEE, pp. 146--153, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. R. Dąbrowski, K. Stencel, and G. Timoszuk, Software is a directed multigraph, ECSA, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, I. Crnkovic, V. Gruhn, and M. Book, Eds., vol. 6903. Springer, pp. 360--369, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. J. Derrick and H. Wehrheim, Model transformations across views, Science of Computer Programming, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 192--210, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. H. Erdogmus, M. Morisio, and M. Torchiano, On the effectiveness of the test-first approach to programming, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 31, pp. 226--237, March 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. F. Fleurey, B. Baudry, R. B. France, and S. Ghosh, A generic approach for automatic model composition, MoDELS Workshops, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, H. Giese, Ed., vol. 5002. Springer, pp. 7--15, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. S. Gossens, F. Belli, S. Beydeda, and M. Dal Cin, View graphs for analysis and testing of programs at different abstraction levels, HASE'05: Proceedings of the Ninth IEEE International Symposium on High-Assurance Systems Engineering. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 121--130, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. J. Herbsleb, A. Mockus, and J. Roberts, Collaboration in software engineering projects: A theory of coordination, in ICIS 2006 General Topics. Twenty Seventh International Conference on Information Systems, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. P. Kruchten, P. Lago, H. van Vliet, and T. Wolf, Building up and exploiting architectural knowledge, Proceedings of the 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. T. Kühne, B. Selic, M.-P. Gervais, and F. Terrier, Eds, Modelling Foundations and Applications, 6th European Conference, ECMFA 2010, Paris, France, June 15--18, 2010. Proceedings, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6138. Springer, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. T. Mens and M. Lanza, A graph-based metamodel for object-oriented software metrics, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 57--68, graBaTs 2002, Graph-Based Tools (First International Conference on Graph Transformation), 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. L. Osterweil, Software processes are software too, Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Engineering. Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 2--13, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. P. Tabor and K. Stencel, Stream Execution of Object Queries, Grid and Distributed Computing, Control and Automation, vol. 121, pp. 167--176, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Improving software quality by improving architecture management

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      CompSysTech '12: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies
      June 2012
      440 pages
      ISBN:9781450311939
      DOI:10.1145/2383276

      Copyright © 2012 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 22 June 2012

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate241of492submissions,49%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader