期刊文献+

Integrating behavior analysis into architectural modeling

Integrating behavior analysis into architectural modeling
原文传递
导出
摘要 Architectural modeling and behavior analysis are two important concerns in the software development. They are often implemented separately, and specified by their own supporting notations. Architectural modeling helps to guarantee the system design to satisfy the requirement, and behavior analysis can ensure the interaction correctness. To improve the trustworthiness, methods trying to combine architectural modeling and behavior analysis notations together have been proposed, e.g., establishing a one-way mapping relation. However, the one-way relation cannot ensure updating one notation specifications in accordance with the other one, which results in inconsistency problems. In this paper, we present an approach to integrating behavior analysis into architectural modeling, which establishes the interoperability between architectural modeling notation and behavior analysis notation by a bidirectional mapping. The architecture is specified by the modeling language, architecture analysis and design language (AADL), and then mapped to behavior analysis notation, Darwin/FSP (finite state process) through the bidirectional transformation. The bidirectional transformarion provides traceability, which makes behavior analysis result provided by a model checker can be traced and reflected back to the original AADL specifications. In this way, the behavior analysis is integrated into architectural modeling. The feasibility of our approach is shown by a control system example. Architectural modeling and behavior analysis are two important concerns in the software development. They are often implemented separately, and specified by their own supporting notations. Architectural modeling helps to guarantee the system design to satisfy the requirement, and behavior analysis can ensure the interaction correctness. To improve the trustworthiness, methods trying to combine architectural modeling and behavior analysis notations together have been proposed, e.g., establishing a one-way mapping relation. However, the one-way relation cannot ensure updating one notation specifications in accordance with the other one, which results in inconsistency problems. In this paper, we present an approach to integrating behavior analysis into architectural modeling, which establishes the interoperability between architectural modeling notation and behavior analysis notation by a bidirectional mapping. The architecture is specified by the modeling language, architecture analysis and design language (AADL), and then mapped to behavior analysis notation, Darwin/FSP (finite state process) through the bidirectional transformation. The bidirectional transformarion provides traceability, which makes behavior analysis result provided by a model checker can be traced and reflected back to the original AADL specifications. In this way, the behavior analysis is integrated into architectural modeling. The feasibility of our approach is shown by a control system example.
出处 《Frontiers of Computer Science》 SCIE EI CSCD 2015年第1期15-33,共19页 中国计算机科学前沿(英文版)
基金 The authors would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. Special thanks to Raymond Cheng, Andrew Liu and Yuan Yao for their careful revisions. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under (Grant Nos. 91118004, 61232007), and the Innovation Program of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission (13ZZ023).
关键词 software architecture component behavior bidirectional transformation architecture analysis and design language (AADL) model checking software architecture, component behavior,bidirectional transformation, architecture analysis and design language (AADL), model checking
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献43

  • 1Kang K C, Cohen S G, Hess J A, Novak W E, Peterson A S. Feature- oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical Report, Carnegie-Mellon University Software Engineering Institute, Novem- ber 1990.
  • 2Kang K, Kim S, Lee J, Kim K, Shin E, Huh M. FORM: a feature- oriented reuse method with domain-specific reference architectures. Annals of Software Engineering, 1998, 5(1): 143-168.
  • 3Czarnecki K, Helsen S, Eisenecker U W. Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization. Software Process: Improve- ment and Practice, 2005, 10(1): 7-29.
  • 4Batory D S, Benavides D, Cort6s A R. Automated analysis of fea- ture models: challenges ahead. Communications of the ACM, 2006, 49(12): 45-47.
  • 5Loesch F, Ploedereder E. Optimization of variability in software prod- uct lines. In: Proceedings of the llth International Software Product Line Conference. 2007, 151-162.
  • 6Steger M, Tischer C, Boss B, Mi-ller A, Pertler O, Stolz W, Ferber S. Introducing PLA at bosch gasoline systems: experiences and practices. In: Nord R, ed, Software Product Lines. Springer, 2004, 34-50.
  • 7She S, Lotufo R, Berger T, Wasowski A, Czarnecki K. The variabil- ity model of the linux kernel. In: Proceedings of the 4th Interna- tional Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Sys- tems. 2010, 45-51.
  • 8Berger T, She S, Lotufo R, W-sowski A, Czarnecki K. Variability mod- eling in the real: a perspective from the operating systems domain. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. 2010, 73-82.
  • 9Czamecki K, Poster J, Hu Z, L-haamel R, Sahth-r A, Terwilliger J. Bidi- rectional transformations: a cross-discipline perspective. In: Proceed- ings of the 2rid International Conference on Theory and Practice of Model Transformations. 2009, 260-283.
  • 10Wang B, Hu Z, Sun Q, Zhao H, Xiong Y, Mei H. Supporting feature model refinement with updatable view. Technical Report, GRACE-TR- 2010-05, GRACE Center, National Instisute of Informatics, May 2010.

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部