Architecture description language: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:13, 25 November 2017

Revision as of 08:35, 12 December 2017

Line 15:

==History==

ADLs have been classified into three broad categories: box-and-line informal drawings, formal architecture description language, and UML ([[Unified Modeling Language]])-based notations.

Box-and-line have been for a long time the most predominant means for describing SAs. While providing useful documentation, the level of

informality limited the usefulness of the architecture description. A more rigorous way for describing SAs was required. Quoting Allen and Garlan (1997),<ref name="Allen1997">{{Cite journal | last1 = Allen | first1 = R. | last2 = Garlan | first2 = D. | doi = 10.1145/258077.258078 | title = A formal basis for architectural connection | journal = ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology | volume = 6 | issue = 3 | pages = 213 | year = 1997 | pmid = | pmc = }}</ref> "while these [box-and-line] descriptions may provide useful documentation, the current level of informality limits their usefulness. Since it is generally imprecise what is meant by such architectural descriptions, it may be impossible to analyze an architecture for consistency or determine non-trivial properties of it. Moreover, there is no way to check that a system implementation is faithful to its architectural design." A similar conclusion is drawn in Perry and Wolf (1992),<ref name="PERRY1992">{{Cite journal | last1 = Perry | first1 = D. E. | last2 = Wolf | first2 = A. L. | authorlink2 = Alexander L. Wolf| doi = 10.1145/141874.141884 | title = Foundations for the study of software architecture | journal = [[ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes]]| volume = 17 | issue = 4 | pages = 40 | year = 1992 | pmid = | pmc = | url = http://users.ece.utexas.edu/~perry/work/papers/swa-sen.pdf}}</ref> which reports that: "Aside from providing clear and precise documentation, the primary purpose of specifications is to provide automated analysis of the documents and to expose various kinds of problems that would otherwise go undetected."

Line 23 ⟶ 24:

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 = 0-7695-2548-2 | pmid = | pmc = }}</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 | year = 2010 | pmid = | pmc = }}</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 = 0-8186-7361-3 | pmid = | pmc = }}</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, [[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 |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 | pmid = | pmc = }}</ref>

In fact, as highlighted in a recent study conducted with practitioners,<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 | doi = 10.1109/TSE.2012.74}}</ref> whilst practitioners are generally satisfied with the design capabilities provided by the languages they use, they are dissatisfied with the architectural language analysis features and their abilities to define extra-functional properties; architectural languages used in practice mostly originate from industrial development instead of from academic research; more formality and better usability are required of an architectural language.