Software reflexion models: bridging the gap between source and high-level models
SIGSOFT '95 Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering
Applied software architecture
A Classification and Comparison Framework for Software Architecture Description Languages
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Modeling software architectures in the Unified Modeling Language
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)
Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond
Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond
The 4+1 View Model of Architecture
IEEE Software
Software Architecture in Practice
Software Architecture in Practice
WCRE '03 Proceedings of the 10th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering
Using dependency models to manage complex software architecture
OOPSLA '05 Proceedings of the 20th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications
Static Evaluation of Software Architectures
CSMR '06 Proceedings of the Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering
High-impact Refactoring Based on Architecture Violations
CSMR '07 Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering
A Comparison of Static Architecture Compliance Checking Approaches
WICSA '07 Proceedings of the Sixth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture
Comprehensive Architecture Evaluation and Management in Large Software-Systems
QoSA '08 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Quality of Software-Architectures: Models and Architectures
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Software systems tend to diverge from their intended architecture. This architectural decay reduces software quality, like understandability, changeability and maintainability. Furthermore, non-functional properties provided by the intended architecture are no longer guaranteed to hold for the system. To ensure architectural compliance, regular checks are essential. We examined the architecture of eight software systems. Supported by the software architects, the architectural prescriptions for the module views were collected to automatically check compliance of the systems with the intended architecture. We used three tools that support architectural compliance checks: Sotograph, Sonar J and Lattix. Though these tools were helpful, it turned out that they could not adequately check all aspects of the intended architecture. We identified three concepts that could not be fully modeled and checked. This paper describes these concepts and substantiates them with examples from the eight software systems. The given concepts can be utilized in several ways, e.g., for extending existing check approaches and tools, and as a means for architectural modeling.