Survey on software architecture design approaches and tools

Software architecture provides a powerful way to manage the complexity of large software systems. Software architecture can help people to better understand the total structure of the system. It has emerged as a distinct form of abstraction for software systems with its own set of design issues, voc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Rekha Kemburaju
Other Authors: School of Computer Engineering
Format: Final Year Project
Language:English
Published: 2014
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/10356/59005
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Nanyang Technological University
Language: English
id sg-ntu-dr.10356-59005
record_format dspace
spelling sg-ntu-dr.10356-590052023-03-03T20:36:58Z Survey on software architecture design approaches and tools Rekha Kemburaju School of Computer Engineering Asst Prof Liu Yang DRNTU::Engineering::Computer science and engineering::Software::Software engineering Software architecture provides a powerful way to manage the complexity of large software systems. Software architecture can help people to better understand the total structure of the system. It has emerged as a distinct form of abstraction for software systems with its own set of design issues, vocabulary, and rules. In order to describe these architectures many methods have been invented. These are called Architecture description languages (ADLs) [1]. ADL is a formal language used to describe the structure and behaviour of software architecture. It provides features for modelling a software system’s conceptual architecture, distinguished from the system’s implementation. This paper studies different ADL languages: Wright# , Acme, xADL 2.0, Aesop and its associated tools Process Analysis Toolkit (PAT), AcmeStudio, ArchStudio, and AesopSystem using an ADL comparison framework and an architecture-style evaluation framework. The ADL comparison framework looks into architecture modelling features and tool support offered by these selected ADLs. This comparison framework intends to highlight the general capabilities and qualities of ADLs. The evaluation framework is complimentary to this general survey of ADLs. It evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of selected ADLs for their support to model the Client-server and Pipe-and-filter architecture styles. Bachelor of Engineering (Computer Science) 2014-04-21T02:21:48Z 2014-04-21T02:21:48Z 2014 2014 Final Year Project (FYP) http://hdl.handle.net/10356/59005 en Nanyang Technological University 82 p. application/pdf
institution Nanyang Technological University
building NTU Library
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider NTU Library
collection DR-NTU
language English
topic DRNTU::Engineering::Computer science and engineering::Software::Software engineering
spellingShingle DRNTU::Engineering::Computer science and engineering::Software::Software engineering
Rekha Kemburaju
Survey on software architecture design approaches and tools
description Software architecture provides a powerful way to manage the complexity of large software systems. Software architecture can help people to better understand the total structure of the system. It has emerged as a distinct form of abstraction for software systems with its own set of design issues, vocabulary, and rules. In order to describe these architectures many methods have been invented. These are called Architecture description languages (ADLs) [1]. ADL is a formal language used to describe the structure and behaviour of software architecture. It provides features for modelling a software system’s conceptual architecture, distinguished from the system’s implementation. This paper studies different ADL languages: Wright# , Acme, xADL 2.0, Aesop and its associated tools Process Analysis Toolkit (PAT), AcmeStudio, ArchStudio, and AesopSystem using an ADL comparison framework and an architecture-style evaluation framework. The ADL comparison framework looks into architecture modelling features and tool support offered by these selected ADLs. This comparison framework intends to highlight the general capabilities and qualities of ADLs. The evaluation framework is complimentary to this general survey of ADLs. It evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of selected ADLs for their support to model the Client-server and Pipe-and-filter architecture styles.
author2 School of Computer Engineering
author_facet School of Computer Engineering
Rekha Kemburaju
format Final Year Project
author Rekha Kemburaju
author_sort Rekha Kemburaju
title Survey on software architecture design approaches and tools
title_short Survey on software architecture design approaches and tools
title_full Survey on software architecture design approaches and tools
title_fullStr Survey on software architecture design approaches and tools
title_full_unstemmed Survey on software architecture design approaches and tools
title_sort survey on software architecture design approaches and tools
publishDate 2014
url http://hdl.handle.net/10356/59005
_version_ 1759858231925014528