LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Kloukinas, C.; Ozkaya, M. (2014)
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: QA75, TA
Despite being a widely-used language for specifying software systems, UML remains less than ideal for software architectures. Architecture description languages (ADLs) were developed to provide more comprehensive support. However, so far the application of ADLs in practice has been impeded by at least one of the following problems: (i) advanced formal notations requiring a steep learning curve, (ii) lack of support for user-defined, complex connectors, and (iii) potentially unrealizable architectural designs.\ud \ud This paper proposes Xcd, a new ADL that aims at supporting user-defined, complex connectors to help increase architectural modularity. It also aims to help increase the degree of reusability, as now components need not specify interaction protocols, as these can be specified independently by connectors (which increases protocol reusability too).\ud Connector support requires to ensure that architectural designs are always realizable, as it is currently extremely easy to obtain unrealizable ones. Xcd eliminates potentially unrealizable constructs in connector specifications.\ud \ud Finally, Xcd employs a notation and notions from Design-by-Contract (DbC) for specifying software architecture behaviour. While DbC promotes a formal and precise way of specifying system behaviours, it is not as challenging for practising developers as process algebras that are usually employed by ADLs.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article