Apidays New York 2024 - Accelerating FinTech Innovation by Vasa Krishnan, Fin...
July 2013 Talk, What Industry Needs from Architecture Description Languages
1. WHAT INDUSTRY NEEDS FROM ARCHITECTURE
DESCRIPTION LANGUAGES (ADLS)
- REPORT OF AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY
- TOWARDS REQUIREMENTS FOR NEXT- TOWARDS REQUIREMENTS FOR NEXT
GENERATION ADLS
Daniel Gross, PhD, talk sponsored by JBS
2. An International Survey
Reported in Malavolta et. al (2013)“What Industry Needs from
Architectural Languages: A Survey” [1]
First practitioners survey of ALs (ADLs) needs of its kind.
2
Future plan
to collaborate with Malavolta et al, and replicate and refine survey to identify
Israeli industry needs
To focus on adaptability of ADL notation and tools to support domain/project
specific needs
To drill down with several in-depth case studies to identify specific ADL
documentation and communication needs
1, Malavolta, I., Lago, P., Member, S., Muccini, H., Pelliccione, P., & Tang, A. (2013). What Industry Needs from Architectural
Languages: A Survey. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, 39(6), 869–891
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
3. Why describe Software Architecture?
Some examples:
Document & Communicate
key design decisions,
architectural solutions
3
Analyze Architecture
Solution system characteristics (load, performance, scalabilities,
vulnerabilities, etc)
Business analysis (meeting business goals, governance)
Business/Technology evolution analysis
Develop Product line development approach
Architectural compliance & code generation
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
4. Some definitions
Software Architecture
“The fundamental organization of a system,
embodied in its components, their relationships to
each other and the environment, and the principles
governing its design and evolution (ISO/IEC/IEEE
4
governing its design and evolution (ISO/IEC/IEEE
42010).”
Architecture description language
“A form of expression used for architecture description
(ISO/IEC/ IEEE 42010).
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
6. Main Research Questions
RQ1: What are the architectural description needs of
practitioners?
RQ2: What features typically supported by existing Als
6
RQ2: What features typically supported by existing Als
[and tools] are useful, or not useful, for the software
industry?
These two questions were developed into 51 specific
interview questions in 10 categories
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
7. Main question categories
Survey design
1. Company information
2. Personal Information
3. Generic questions on current
use of AL
4. Technical AL question
Tool related questions
9. Usefulness of AL features in the
past and in anticipating future
needs
7
5. Tool related questions
6. AL specific questions for one
project
7. Questions to architects having
used AL in the past only
8. Questions to architecture having
never used AL
10. Concluding questions
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhDList of needs was mostly derived
from the literature
8. Survey Participants
48 practitioners from 40 different IT companies in 15
countries
125 ADLs identified in total
8
Respondents and relevant ADLs identified through
systematic literature search
Identification of practitioner co-authors
Snow-balling (practitioners identifies other practitioners)
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
9. Survey Participants, cont.
IT company selection included
9
<1K
52%
1K-5K
21%
>5K
27%
Nr of Employees
On Average 143 Architects in a company
min: 1 (external consultant),
max: 5000 (multi-national org.)
On average 7 years experience
min: 1 year;
max: 20 years
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
21%
10. Survey Participants, cont.
Project criticality
62% of participants involved in critical projects
Critical: high severity consequences, if system fails during operation
Project duration and staffing
10
Project duration and staffing
From 6 months to nine years
From 6 people to 10K persons
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
11. Synopsis of Survey Result
We’ll present selected interesting questions
and answers
11
Summary of main findings & indications for
next generation ADLs and Tools requirements
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
12. What Architectural notations were used?
Current Use of Software Architecture Description
25
30
35
40
Used Architectural Notations
86%, use UML & Profiles
88% Generic notations
44% Domain specific notations
33% Overall, use both, not necessary in
12
0
5
10
15
20
About 20% used multiple ADLs
33% Overall, use both, not necessary in
same project
Interesting: Selection of ADLs for project is based on prior familiarity,
skills, rather that fits of ADL with application domain (e.g. RT)
13. What are three main design concerns?
Current Use of Software Architecture Description
Three most important concerns during architectural
design:
73% Characteristics of the system developed
62% Requirements and constraints from system’s context
36% Definition of functional and extra-functional
13
Are main concerns covered by notation/tool support?
how well does UML support:
Specifying extra-functional requirements?
Linking extra-functional requirements to system design decisions, and
artifacts
36% Definition of functional and extra-functional
requirements
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
14. What are main architecture analysis needs?
Current Use of Software Architecture Description
63%, did “semantic” analyze of architecture described in an ADL
Analysis examples given
Data flow, Run-time dependency,
Performance, Scalability,
Security, Compliance with requirements,
Simulation, Finding design flaws
Change impact, Cost/Value analysis
14
Reasons given by 37% not doing analysis with ADL
Problem with description
Too abstract for analysis
Formality needed would be too complex
Description for informal use only
only for documenting
communication between stakeholders
Analysis is done manually, e.g. review
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
15. Do you check for architectural compliance?
General Architecting Practice
65%, check for some kind of architectural compliance
A variety of approaches for compliance checking were
mentioned, e.g.
Informal documentation review
15
Formal Executable models
Test cases
Compliance checked
Architecture compliant with Requirements
Code compliant with architecture
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
16. Do you specify architectural styles?
General Architecting Practice
76% declared
using architectural styles,
kinds of architectural patterns, or
ADLs that impose specific constraints
16
All indicated the need for flexibility to choose styles for
projects, rather than stick to predefined “domain” styles
Indicated need for flexibility when applying styles
the need to further customize styles use
language and tool support for flexible styles use
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
17. Have you customized/extended an ADL in a project 1/2?
Technical Questions
68% of responded have customized/extended an ADL
48%, new views
13%, new constraints
7%, both
32%, did not customize/extend ADL
17
32%, did not customize/extend ADL
55%, saw no need
18%, not enough resources to extend.
So, overall 86% of responded required
extending/customizing ADLs on projects
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
18. Have you customized/extended an ADL in a project 2/2?
Technical Questions
Kinds of customization/extensions mentioned
17%, made informal descriptive extensions, only
26%, to support analysis needs, extending language and tools
35% of responded used pre-existing extension mechanisms
18
E.g. UML profiles
Apparently, 65% of responded who extended an ADL,
invested in non-standard extensions mechanisms,
going beyond pre-existing extension capabilities of ADLs and tools
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
19. How you practiced reuse?
Technical Questions
68% of respondents applied explicit reuse mechanisms
29%, reuse component definitions/realizations
6%, product line engineering
21%, reuse architectural descriptions
9%, architectural patterns
15%, captured design decisions and architectural knowledge in wiki’s
19
12%, informal, unorganized reuse, mainly cut-and-paste
So, 80% of respondents practice reuse in some form. Drawing
from pre-existing knowledge should be supported by an ADL
and Tool
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
20. What facilities do you miss in tools?
Tool Questions
86% (29/48 respondents answered)
require additional tool features
24%, Additional analysis and simulation
support
17%, better visualization
17%, better usability
21% link with other IDEs and tools,
20
21% link with other IDEs and tools,
including
Documentation generation
Linking to requirements
Linking to code
17%, better support for viewpoints
Missing viewpoints needed
Ability to generate views from an existing
system
This should be correlated to
specific tools used, project type and
possibly team characteristics
21. Use of AL in one specific project
Main Findings
Selection criteria of AL, rather than fit with domain, are:
Preexisting community, or Tool support, Preexisting in-house competence
Main needs (in this order), support for:
66%, Architectural design
36%, Communicating with stakeholders, including non-technical stakeholders
To reflect on generic
answers through eyes of
specific project21
30%, Architectural Analysis
Most unmet need of current ADLs
37.5%, expressiveness for extra-functional requirements
25%, insufficient communication support to explain architecture to non-technical stakeholders
Architectural design co-occurs during Requirements analysis
48%, make use of ADLs during requirements
84%, make use of ADL before requirements
finalized (architecting with requirements
uncertainty)
ADLs insufficiently express extra-functional
requirements
hence limiting support for architectural analysis
22. Usefulness of features in the past and future 1/2
22
-2 = least useful, +2 = most useful
List of needs was mostly
derived from the literature
23. Usefulness of features in the past and future 2/2
Definitely useful in the past (at least
25% of responded gave it grade +2)
Tool Support
Support for iterative architecting
Analysis
Multiple architectural views
Graphic syntax
Well defined semantics
23
Definitely useful in the future
Life-cycle support
Extensibility
Collaborative architecting
Textual syntax
Support for aligning architecture description
with code
Not useful in past and future
ADL interoperability
Code reverse / forward engineering
Is this surprising?
24. What additional features ADL should have?
24
40%, Seamlessly Adaptable to
support system specific
characteristics
20%, Better Usability
16%, flexibly support problem specific
feature sets
-Real Time
-Exception/Error Handling
-Design decisions linked to
artifacts
-Link structural, behavioral
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
Next Gen ADL
20%, Better traceability to
code
20%, Better traceability to
artifacts
-Link structural, behavioral
aspects
25. Towards Requirements for next Gen ADL & Tool
(this ranking is not in the paper)
25
86% Required extending/customizing ADLs on projects
48%, new (& derived) views
13%, new constraints
7%, both
84% Architectural design with incomplete requirements
80% Support Reuse in some form
76% Architectural styles, kinds of architectural patterns, or ADLs
that impose specific constraints
Tailorable approaches to styles
40% Seamless Adaptable (additional ADL features)
37.5% Analysis (very useful, future)
37.5% Expressiveness for extra-functional requirements
36% Definition of functional and extra-functional requirements
36% Communicating with stakeholders, including non-technical
stakeholders
30% Support for Architectural Analysis (from one specific project)
32.5% Alignment of Software Architecture with Implementation
(very useful, future)Tailorable approaches to styles
73% Support for dealing with characteristics of the system
developed
68% Support for explicit reuse mechanisms
67.5% Multiple Architectural Views
66% Support for architectural design
65% Support for kinds of architectural compliance
Architecture compliant with Requirements
Code compliant with Architecture
63% Semantic analysis of architecture described in an ADL
62% Requirements/constraints/assumptions from system’s context
48% Co-occurrence of Architectural design with Requirements
47.5% Adaptability (Extensibility + Customization) (very useful, future)
47.5% Iterative Architecting; Versioning; Well-defined semantics;
40% Graphic Syntax
(very useful, future)
21% Additional analysis and simulation support (in general)
20% Better Usability of ADLs (additional ADL features)
18% Link with other IDEs and Tools
Documentation generation
Link to requirements
Link to code
17.5% Sketch based syntax
16% Flexible support for features sets (RT, Exception handing,
etc.) (additional ADL features)
15% Better Visualization
15% Better Usability
15% Better support for Viewpoints
Ability to add missing viewpoints
Ability generate views from existing system code
10% Architectural Style support (very useful, future)
26. Summary
Architects are engaged in two broad tasks
Explaining, negotiating architectural choices with non-technical business as
well as technical stakeholders
Architectural design and implementation tasks to support software
development
26
To support architects, ADLs need to offer
Flexibility to seamlessly adapt ADLs to specific domain/project/problem
needs fit with problem domain
Simple and intuitive, meaningful communication/documentation, right
message, description approach, for involved stakeholders
Good definition & analysis support for extra-functional properties
Enough formality to support design, solution analysis and automation tasks
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
27. Replicating Survey, Performing in-depth case studies in
Israeli hi-tech Industry
What do you need from an ADL?
How useful would a flexible model-driven/“meta case” ADL tool be
for you?
To supports quickly adapting of ADLs and Views to your specific needs?
To generating/extracting tailored on and off-line documentation?
27
To generating/extracting tailored on and off-line documentation?
Linking to various kinds of artifacts, including
extra-functional ones?
Support add-on descriptive features sets and analyses
How about establishing an open repository
for downloadable ADL customization,
for capturing reusable architecture know-how
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD
Do you want to participate?
Talk to me:
(daniel.gross@utoronto.ca)
![An International Survey
Reported in Malavolta et. al (2013)“What Industry Needs from
Architectural Languages: A Survey” [1]
First practitioners survey of ALs (ADLs) needs of its kind.
2
Future plan
to collaborate with Malavolta et al, and replicate and refine survey to identify
Israeli industry needs
To focus on adaptability of ADL notation and tools to support domain/project
specific needs
To drill down with several in-depth case studies to identify specific ADL
documentation and communication needs
1, Malavolta, I., Lago, P., Member, S., Muccini, H., Pelliccione, P., & Tang, A. (2013). What Industry Needs from Architectural
Languages: A Survey. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, 39(6), 869–891
(C) 2013, Daniel Gross, PhD]()