A case study in applying a systematic method for COTS selection
Proceedings of the 18th international conference on Software engineering
Fast algorithms for mining association rules
Readings in database systems (3rd ed.)
Distributed Systems: Principles and Paradigms
Distributed Systems: Principles and Paradigms
IT Architectures and Middleware: Strategies for Building Large, Integrated Systems (2nd Edition)
IT Architectures and Middleware: Strategies for Building Large, Integrated Systems (2nd Edition)
OOPSLA '04 Companion to the 19th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications
A Component Assembly Approach Based On Aspect-Oriented Generative Domain Modeling
Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS)
Evaluating alternative COTS assemblies from imperfect component information
QoSA'06 Proceedings of the Second international conference on Quality of Software Architectures
Explicit architectural policies to satisfy NFRs using COTS
MoDELS'05 Proceedings of the 2005 international conference on Satellite Events at the MoDELS
Evaluating alternative COTS assemblies from imperfect component information
QoSA'06 Proceedings of the Second international conference on Quality of Software Architectures
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Component-based software elaboration becomes unwieldy for some practical situations with large numbers of components for which information is imperfect (incomplete, imprecise and/or uncertain). This article addresses the problem of identifying “interesting” component sets for some given non-functional requirements (NFRs), using imperfect information about large number of components. Rather than providing completely specified solutions, this approach allows architects to identify and compare whole assemblies, and focus eventual information- improvement efforts only on those components that are part of candidate assemblies. The proposed technique builds on the Azimut layered architectural abstractions, adapting an algorithmic approach used to mine association rules, and taking three parameters: a minimal “support score” that candidate assemblies must meet, and two credibility-value thresholds about the catalog themselves. An example illustrates the approach.