http://www.computing.dcu.ie/~pjamshidi/SLR-ACSE.html

1. A Framework for Classifying and Comparing
Architecture-Centric Software Evolution Research
Pooyan Jamshidi, Mohammad Ghafari,
Aakash Ahmad, Claus Pahl
Lero - The Irish Software Engineering Research Centre,
School of Computing, Dublin City University

2. Architecture-Centric Software Evolution
 Software Architecture represents the blue-print of a software as
topological configuration of computational components and connectors that
enable component-level interconnections. [ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 Standard]
 Software Evolution adapts a software to changing requirements and
operating environment by means of addition, removal and modification of
software artefacts. [ACM/IEEE Software Engineering Curriculum, 2004]
- Evolution @ Design-time
- Evolution @ Run-time
2

3. Traditional Architecture-Centric Software Evolution
3

4. A Paradigm Change (I): models@runtime
4

5. A Paradigm Change (II): executable models
Adaptation
System=Executable Model
Run-Time Environment
Executing the model makes sense
An engine is responsible for the execution
An interpreted DSL is needed
5

6. The Conceptual Framework
6

7. Motivations for this Study
Wide spectrum of approaches
Different paradigms and frameworks
Different problem and solution spaces
Different interpretation of concepts
No systematic insight into state-of-the-art
 Such insight is crucial for practitioners and researchers
To that end, we performed an SLR
 Taxonomic Scheme
 Classification and Comparison
7

8. Agenda
• Research Methodology
• Research Questions
• Search Strategy & Quality Assessment
• Data Items
• Results
• Limitations
8

9. Systematic Literature Review (Abstract)
9

10. Research Methodology
10

11. Research Methodology
11

12. Project Scope
• 60 papers selected after exclusion process
• Protocol defined by 4 researchers
• Papers reviewed by 2 researchers
• Data analysis with 4 researchers
• ~30 discussion sessions to get an agreement on
data extraction
• Duration of the study ~ 9 months
• Special thanks to Excel and Dropbox!!!
12

13. Research Questions
RQ1: What types of evolution are supported in
ACSE?
RQ2: Which formalisms are required to enable an
ACSE approach?
RQ3: How architectural reasoning is adopted in
ACSE?
RQ4: Which execution environments and mechanisms
are needed to enable run-time evolution?
RQ5: What tool supports is available for ACSE?
13

14. Search Strings and Retrieved Papers
No Name Results
1 ACM 663
2 IEEE 1149
3 Science Direct 194
4 Web Of Science 480
5 Springer Link 445
6 Pro-Quest 231
7 Google Scholar 460
8 Wiley 516
Total 4138
14

15. Quality Assessment of Studies
General
1. Problem definition of the study (2)
2. Environment in which the study was carried out (1)
3. Research design of the study refers to the way the study was organized (2)
4. Contributions of the study refer to the study results (2)
5. Insights derived from the study (2)
6. Limitations of the study (2)
Specific
1. Main focus of the paper (2)
2. The architecture descriptions presented in the studies (2)
3. Architectural properties in terms of constraints (2)
4. Evaluation of the study (2)
G1+G2+G3+G4+G5+G6 (S1+S2+S3+S4)
 Ranking formula= + ∗3
11 8
 4= Quality papers; 3: Acceptable; 2, 1, 0: Excluded 15

16. Number of Included Studies per Year
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
16

17. Taxonomical
Collected Data Items
Sub-
Coded Attributes
Classification classifications (Domain Knowledge, Standards, Keywords)
(Higher-Order Theme) (Sub-themes)
Need for Evolution ISO/IEC 14764 typology of change: Corrective, Perfective, Adaptive, Preventive, All applicable
Static: Transformation, Refactoring, Refinement, Restructuring, Pattern change; Dynamic:
Means of Evolution
Reconfiguration, Adaptation
Type of
Time of Evolution Design-Time, Run-Time
Evolution Change impact: Consistency checking, Impact analysis, Propagation; Change history: Evolution
Support Activity
analysis, Versioning
Stage of Evolution SDLC: Analysis/Design, Implementation, Integration/provisioning, Deployment, Evolution
Level of Formalism Lightweight, Formal
Modeling language: ADL, Programming lang., Domain-specific lang., Type systems, Archface,
Model-based; Formal models: Graph theory, Petri-net, Ontology, State machine, Constraint
Type of Formalism
automata, CHAM; Process algebra: FSP, CSP, π-calculus; Logic (Constraint language): OCL, CCL,
Type of FOL, Grammars, Temporal logics, Rules, Description logic, Z, Alloy, Larch
Specification Process algebra: Darwin, Wright, LEDA, PiLar; Standards: UML, Ex.-UML, SysML, AADL; Others:
Description Language
ACME, Aesop, C2, MetaH, Rapide, SADL, UniCon, Weaves, Koala, xADL, ADML, AO-ADL, xAcme
UML Specification Static: Class, Component, Object; Dynamic: Activity, State, Sequence, Transition, Communication
Description Aspect Structural, Behavioral, Semantic
Structural: Pattern, Architectural style, Primitive, Metaphore, Micro-structure, Crosscutting
Architectural concern, Clue; Invariant: Component-level invariant, Cross-component invariant, Pre-/Post-
Type of Constraint condition, Temporal invariant; Relational constraints: Coding rules, Cardinality, Coordination,
Reasoning Meta-model, Variability
Intent of Reasoning Specify, Preserve, Change, Enforce, Match, Discover, Analyze
Type of Analysis Consistency checking, Model checking, Pattern conformance, Graph refinement, Enforcement
Component model: Fractal, KOALA, SOFA 2.0, CCM, OpenCOM, KobrA, Middleware: SIENA, OSGi,
Runtime Environment
Run-Time .NET, MS-COM, EJB, JavaBeans, SOA middleware, Coordination model: Reo, Linda, MANIFOLD
Issue Mechanism of Reflection mechanisms: Introspection, Constraint injection, Intercession, Reification, Causal
Runtime Evolution connection, Evolution enablers: Safe stopping, Runtime binding, State transfer
Need for Tool Support Architecture life-cycle: Business case, Creating architecture, Documenting, Analyzing, Evolving
Tool Analysis Simulation, Dependence analysis, Model checking, Conformance testing, Interface consistency,
Support Usage of Tool Support Inspection and review-based
Level of Automation Fully automated, Partially automated, Manual
A particular problem/challenge, Overview or Survey, Formalism for constraint specification,
Research Motivation
Formalism for architectural analysis, Formalism for arch. evolution, Formalism for code generation
Research Development paradigm: SPL, OO, SOA, CBS; Traditional: Embedded, Real-time, Process-aware,
Method Application Domain Distributed, Event-based, Concurrent, Mechatronic, Mobile, Robotic, Grid computing; Emerging:
Cloud computing, Smart-*, Autonomic computing, *-critical, Ubiquitous 17
Evaluation Method Case study, Mathematical proof, Example application, Industrial validation

18. Results, RQ1: “types of evolution”
1. Need for Evolution
2. Means of Evolution
3. Time of Evolution
4. Support Activity
5. Stage of Evolution
18

19. Results, RQ1: types of evolution (I)
Need for Evolution
All applicable
Preventive
Adaptive
Perfective
Corrective
0 5 10 15 20
19

20. Results, RQ1: types of evolution (II)
Means of Evolution
Change operation
Arch. decision
Pattern-based
Reconfiguration
Adaptation
Restructuring
Refinement
Refactoring
Transformation
0 5 10 15 20
20

21. Results, RQ1: types of evolution (III)
Time of Evolution
Run-Time
Design-Time
0 10 20 30 40 50
21

22. Results, RQ1: types of evolution (IV)
Support Activity
Versioning
Change propagation
Evolution analysis
Consistency checking
0 2 4 6 8
22

23. Results, RQ1: types of evolution (V)
Stage of Evolution
Maintenance
Implementation
Analysis and Design
0 10 20 30 40
23

24. Results, RQ2: “formalisms”
1. Level of Formalism
2. Type of Formalism
3. Description Language
4. UML Specification
5. Description Aspect
24

25. Results, RQ2: formalisms (I)
Level of Formalism
Formal
Lightweight
0 10 20 30 40
25

26. Results, RQ2: formalisms (II)
Type of Formalism
Archface
Temporal logics
Process algebra
C. Automata
Z
State machine
CCL
OCL
Alloy
Prog. language
π-calculus
Description logic
Model-based
Petri-net
Graph
0 5 10 15 20 26

27. Results, RQ2: formalisms (II)
Description Language
SafArchie
Darwin
AO-ADL
Extended UML
UML
xAcme
ACME
0 5 10 15 20
27

28. Results, RQ2: formalisms (III)
UML Specification
Transition
Communication
Object
Component
Class
Sequence
State
Activity
0 5 10 15 20
28

29. Results, RQ2: formalisms (IV)
Description Aspect
Semantic
Behavioral
Structural
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
29

30. Results, RQ3: “architectural reasoning”
1. Architectural Constraint
2. Intent of Reasoning
3. Type of Analysis
30

31. Results, RQ3: architectural reasoning (I)
Architectural Constraint
Coding rules
Coordination constraint
Pre-/Post-condition
Meta-model
Crosscutting concern
Cross-component invariant
Component-level invariant
Primitive
Architectural style
Pattern
0 5 10 15 20 25
31

32. Results, RQ3: architectural reasoning (II)
Intent of Reasoning
Analyze
Discover
Match
Enforce
Change
Preserve
Specify
0 10 20 30 40
32

33. Results, RQ3: architectural reasoning (III)
Type of Analysis
Constraint enforcement
Graph-based refinement
Pattern conformance
Model checking
Consistency checking
0 5 10 15
33

34. Results, RQ4: “execution environments”
1. Environment of Runtime Evolution
2. Mean of Runtime Evolution
34

35. Results, RQ4: execution environments (I)
Environment of Runtime Mean of Runtime
Evolution Evolution
SIENA Runtime
binding
SOA middleware
PKUAS Causal
connection
CCM
OSGi Reflection
Fractal
0 2 4
0 0.5 1 1.5
35

36. Results, RQ5: “tool supports”
1. Need for Tool Support
2. Analysis Usage of Tool Support
3. Level of Automation
36

37. Results, RQ5: tool supports (I)
Need for Tool Support
Evolving
Analyzing
Documenting
Creating
0 10 20 30 40
37

38. Results, RQ5: tool supports (II)
Analysis Usage of Tool Support
Inspection
Conformance
Model checking
Dependence analysis
Simulation
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
38

39. Results, RQ5: tool supports (III)
Level of Automation
Manual
Partial
Full
0 10 20 30 40
39

40. Results: Research method
1. Application Domain
2. Evaluation Method
40

41. Results: research method (I)
Application Domain
CBD
Event-based system
Distributed system
OO
SOA
0 10 20 30 40
41

42. Results: research method (II)
Evaluation Method
Example application
Mathematical proof
Case study
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
42

43. Main Results: Summary
Recent inclination towards
Runtime adaptation
Self-adaptive applications
Probabilistic modeling
Quantitative verification
“Reflective environments” and “Models @ run-
time” as the key drivers to enable adaptations
Lack of evidences for rigorous validation
Recent evidences of machine learning approaches
in ACSE
43

44. Study Limitations
Bias of the reviewers
Search strategies
Research protocol
Reliability
Consensus among researchers
Scheme
Pilot study
Open data
Results are valid, though not conclusive!!
44

45. Thanks, more details? Check out the link below
http://tiny.cc/hcg8sw 45