• Like
  • Save

Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Software Composition 2010

  • 2,365 views
Published

 

Published in Education , Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
2,365
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide




















































Transcript

  • 1. VISUALIZING AND ASSESSING A COMPOSITIONAL APPROACH OF BUSINESS PROCESS DESIGN (*) (**) Sébastien Mosser , Alexandre Bergel , (*) Mireille Blay-Fornarino (*) University of Nice Sophia - Antipolis, CNRS - I3S - Modalis, (**) University of Chile Software Composition 2010, 07/02, Malaga, Spain
  • 2. VISUALIZING AND ASSESSING A COMPOSITIONAL APPROACH OF BUSINESS PROCESS DESIGN
  • 3. OUTLINE VISUALIZING AND ASSESSING A COMPOSITIONAL APPROACH OF BUSINESS PROCESS DESIGN
  • 4. BUSINESS PROCESS DESIGN «Composing services»
  • 5. BUSINESS PROCESS DESIGN? LET’S TAKE AN EXAMPLE receive X and Y X’ := X+1 Y’ := Y-1 reply X’ and Y’ 4
  • 6. OK. AND WITH REAL ONES? 5
  • 7. OPEN ISSUES Scalability? Understandability? Share? Assessment? 6
  • 8. COMPOSITIONAL APPROACH Composing «compositions of services»
  • 9. SEPARATION OF CONCERNS 8
  • 10. A CAR CRASH CRISIS MGMT SYSTEM [TAOSD] •8 Main Success Scenario: • e.g., «Capture Witness Report» • 27 Business Extensions: • e.g., «Fake Witness Information» •3 Non-Functional Properties: • i.e., «security», «persistence», «statistical logging» http://www.adore-design.org/doku/examples/cccms 9
  • 11. TAOSD Special Issue on AOM n ts e 27 m i re 3 Business Extensions q u Re NF Properties Car Crash Crisis Management System 12 8 «designing» Processes Scenarios «realizing» 1216 e ss 12 Activities 895 c Partners Relations P ro e ss in 76 B us Operations 10 The CCCMS
  • 12. A PARTIAL ANSWER LEADS TO OPEN QUESTIONS • Allows one to understand «concerns» more properly • Shift system «complexity» into concerns «composition» • How to understand the «composition» result? • How to visualize it? • How to assess the composed system? 11
  • 13. SERIOUSLY! (a simple and 12 medium use case)
  • 14. FACTS • Thecomposed system is an intrinsically complex one, • Huge graph visualization is still an open research question 13
  • 15. IDEA ! • SoCseparated concerns to understand them properly ‣ Let’s visualize the «composition» of concerns • Designerscan then identify composition «patterns» ‣ And restrict the size of the graph they’re visualizing! 14
  • 16. VISUALIZING & ASSESSING Visualizing composition of «compositions of services»
  • 17. OBJECTIVES (TRAILER) • Design phase • Identify concerns «families» • Understand concerns «relations» in the system • Understand concerns «interaction» for each artifacts • Analysis phase • Understand system «complexity» 16
  • 18. CONCERNS FAMILIES • Idea: • Classify concerns by «categories» • e.g., impact on data, fault handling, fault throwing • Coarse-grained representation of concerns • Will be used in other visualization • Result: Concerns Dashboard 17 Design
  • 19. CCCMS (24 concerns) data modification fault handler behavior fault inhibition « so what? » throw (pre/post) 18
  • 20. «AGILE» REFINEMENT g e e . an. l ur ist s C h ce nFai o la io H im pter Re tact leOn .Rep iss ide Vict co d ed on nd ail M stV ieve eli a v d e e gr ostC eHa oA aske requ retr useH d l r n R es es t ted rce xt led R ec e E i h c . e I nt por nn ou l t l s ab onFa lAu eDis ab ngRe co t.Re ail si e r ail i is v na mis an c no v na mis s all D Ex u c ig u c no ate sal t ic ee e fu s ion e s en loy eeR es sis iss tim Aut h E mp loy itn ri M ce eout ly3 ust av. mp ke W ke C pla im on m un e fa fa re t 19
  • 21. «AGILE» REFINEMENT g e e . an. l ur ist s C h ce nFai o la io H im pter Re tact leOn .Rep iss ide Vict co d ed on nd ail M stV ieve eli a v d e e gr ostC eHa oA aske requ retr useH d l r n Business R es es t ted rce xt led R ec e E i h c . e I nt por nn ou l t l s ab onFa lAu eDis ab ngRe co t.Re ail si e r ail i is v na mis an c no v na mis s all D Ex u c ig u c no Fault ate sal t ic ee e fu s ion e s en loy eeR es sis iss tim Aut h E mp loy itn ri M ce eout ly3 ust av. mp ke W ke C pla im on m un e fa fa re t Inhibitor 19
  • 22. ZOOM ON «INHIBITORS» inhibits inhibits throws throws «usual» «after» a fault a fault behavior behavior Precondition, OK Postcondition, OK 20
  • 23. ZOOM ON «INHIBITORS» inhibits inhibits throws throws «usual» «after» a fault a fault behavior behavior Precondition, OK Postcondition, OK replaceMission timeout ????? 20
  • 24. CONCERNS RELATIONS • Idea: • Reify concerns «composition» as link • i.e., «this concern is applied in this process» • Coarse-grained representation of the system • Helps one to identify «sub-systems» • Result: Composition Dashboard 21 Design
  • 25. CCCMS COMPLETE SYSTEM 24 concerns 12 processes « so what? » 22
  • 26. INTERPRETATION (LARGE) Requirements Orphans Shared «Concerned» concern 23
  • 27. INTERPRETATION (FINE) Tests «Dangerous» No fault handler Pre/post cond. checker 24
  • 28. CONCERNS COMPOSITION • Idea: • Zoom on a given composition context • i.e., «let’s focus on ‘Handle a Worker’ use case» • Fine-grained representation of composition • Helps one to zoom in a given graph • Result: Composition Dashboard 25 Design
  • 29. HANDLE A WORKER PROCESS « so what? » rpl a101 rcv a100 a101bis cms::handleAMission a100bis a8 a11 a6 a7 cms::handleACrisis 26
  • 30. HANDLE A WORKER PROCESS Interactions Multiple (same) rpl a101 «unconcerned» rcv a100 a101bis cms::handleAMission a100bis Multiple a8 a11 (Procs) a6 a7 cms::handleACrisis Shared Join Point 27
  • 31. SYSTEM COMPLEXITY • Idea: • Map quality metrics on system representation • e.g., «Cognitive load» (understandability), «length», «width» • Observe the evolution of the metrics • Like a before/after advertisement • Result: Complexity Dashboard 28 Analysis
  • 32. POLYMETRICS Composition VIEWS USAGE usage Concerns witdh (parallelism) color (cog. load) Process Process heigth (before) (after) (sequentiality) 29
  • 33. C C C M S « so what? » 30
  • 34. E.G., IDENTIFYING COMPLEXITY KEY POINTS • Simple initial artefacts • understandable (light color) • small (reduced height) • sequential (reduced width) • Composition • Definitively incomprehensible! 31
  • 35. E.G., IDENTIFYING REQUIREMENTS SHIFT • Initial process artifact: • Small, simple, ... • Concerns: • More complex than the system! • Composed system: • «Absorption» by the concerns 32
  • 36. IMPLEMENTATION & PERSPECTIVES How does it work? How to go further?
  • 37. TOOL CHAIN Composition, [Prolog] DSL Mondrian L M X Visualization, 34 [SmallTalk]
  • 38. PERSPECTIVES • Runtime «profiling» • Visualize processes execution trace • Partnership Architecture • Visualize the choreography • Concerns Interactions • Visualize «conflicts» between concerns • Example Coverage • New examples than our five ones 35
  • 39. CONCLUSIONS 36
  • 40. TODAY, WE SAW ... • Visualization of «composition» instead of «composed» • e.g., Identify patterns, classify concerns, • Ultimate goal: «where should I focus on?» • An instance, in a large system [TAOSD,CCCMS] • The CCCMS is a common case study for AOM approaches • Specified by external stakeholder 37
  • 41. AND I COULD HAVE SHOWN ... • How ADORE supports separation of concerns in SOA • Business process design, concerns as fragment, • Several compositions algorithms for several goals • How MONDRIAN allows one to perform agile visualization • SmallTalk interactive scripting • Awesome API to render views and dashboards 38 ask for a demo, if interested ^_^
  • 42. ANY QUESTIONS? REMARKS? http://www.adore-design.org http://www.moosetechnology.org/tools/mondrian 39 Illustrations by C.line