Using style to understand descriptions of software architecture
SIGSOFT '93 Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering
A Classification and Comparison Framework for Software Architecture Description Languages
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Towards a taxonomy of software connectors
Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software engineering
Open Distributed Processing and Multimedia
Open Distributed Processing and Multimedia
An Architecture and a Process for Implementing Distributed Collaborations
EDOC '02 Proceedings of the 6th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference
The Specification of UML Collaborations as Interaction Components
UML '02 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language
A Compositional Approach for Constructing Connectors
WICSA '01 Proceedings of the Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture
How to implement software connectors? a reusable, abstract and adaptable connector
DAIS'05 Proceedings of the 5th IFIP WG 6.1 international conference on Distributed Applications and Interoperable Systems
Implementing endogenous and exogenous connectors with the common component architecture
Proceedings of the 2009 Workshop on Component-Based High Performance Computing
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Software architecture has emerged in the last decade. Applications are represented as set of interconnected components. The way to realize components has reached a certain maturity in both industrial and academic approaches; it has almost the same consideration or definition in the two domains. The way to implement the interconnections between components, however, is not as well understood as implementing components. The experience of implementing the interconnections between components is dispersed since interconnection models are integrated in component models. Every component model defines its own interconnection model without basing on any reference model. This makes the realizations ad-hoc and non uniformed. We propose to make more standard the realization of the connections between components and to distinguish two different entities that differ in nature. This difference of nature implies a different way in using them and a different way in implementing them. We propose to distinguish between communication abstractions embodied in components with explicit interfaces, and communication abstractions embodied in connectors with implicit interfaces. This difference enables a better understanding of the interactions and how to implement them. The realization of the load balancing communication abstraction is used to illustrate the two entities.