Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Add: chapter-url. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by BorgQueen | Category:Articles to be expanded from September 2022 | #UCB_Category 3/747 |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Added date. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Abductive | Category:Programming language classification | #UCB_Category 5/37 |
||
Line 26:
However, these efforts have not seen the desired adoption by industrial practice. Some reasons for this lack of industry adoption have been analyzed by Woods and Hilliard,<ref name="Woods2005">{{Cite book | last1 = Woods | first1 = E. | last2 = Hilliard | first2 = R. | doi = 10.1109/WICSA.2005.15 | chapter = Architecture Description Languages in Practice Session Report | title = 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA'05) | pages = 243 | year = 2005 | isbn = 978-0-7695-2548-8 | s2cid = 18175375 }}</ref> Pandey,<ref name="Pandey2010">{{Cite journal | last1 = Pandey | first1 = R. K. | title = Architectural description languages (ADLs) vs UML | doi = 10.1145/1764810.1764828 | journal = ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes | volume = 35 | issue = 3 | pages = 1–5 | year = 2010 | s2cid = 18848376 }}</ref> Clements,<ref name="ClementsSurvey">{{Cite book | last1 = Clements | first1 = P. C. | chapter = A survey of architecture description languages | doi = 10.1109/IWSSD.1996.501143 | title = Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design | pages = 16–00 | year = 1996 | isbn = 978-0-8186-7361-0 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.208.3401 | s2cid = 7307554 }}</ref> and others: formal ADLs have been rarely integrated in the software life-cycle, they are seldom supported by mature tools, scarcely documented, focusing on very specific needs, and leaving no space for extensions enabling the addition of new features.
As a way to overcome some of those limitations, [[Unified Modeling Language|UML]] has been indicated as a possible successor of existing ADLs. Many proposals have been presented to use or extend the UML to more properly model software architectures.<ref>{{cite web|title= Garlan_TR |date= 31 March 2004|url= http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/04tr008.cfm}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book | last1 = Pérez-Martínez | first1 = J. E. | last2 = Sierra-Alonso | first2 = A. | chapter = UML 1.4 versus UML 2.0 as Languages to Describe Software Architectures | doi = 10.1007/978-3-540-24769-2_7 | title = Software Architecture | series = Lecture Notes in Computer Science | volume = 3047 | pages = 88 | year = 2004 | isbn = 978-3-540-22000-8 | chapter-url = http://oa.upm.es/33081/ }}</ref>
A 2013 study<ref name="IndustrySurvey">{{cite journal| first1 = Ivano| last1 = Malavolta| first2 = Patricia| last2 = Lago| first3 = Henry| last3 = Muccini| first4 = Patrizio| last4 = Pelliccione| first5 = Antony| last5 = Tang | year = 2013 | title = What Industry Needs from Architectural Languages: A Survey | journal = IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering | volume = 39 | issue = 6 | pages = 869–891| doi = 10.1109/TSE.2012.74| s2cid = 6383726}}</ref> found that practitioners were generally satisfied with the design capabilities of the ADLS they used, but had several major concerns with them: they lacked analysis features and the ability to define extra-functional properties; those used in practice mostly originated from industrial development rather than academic research; they needed more formality and better usability.
| |||