| 168 |
@InProceedings{Garlan2000e,
AUTHOR = {Garlan, David and Kompanek, Andrew},
TITLE = {Reconciling the Needs of Architectural Description with Object-Modeling Notations},
YEAR = {2000},
MONTH = {October},
BOOKTITLE = {Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language - << UML >> 2000},
ADDRESS = {York, UK},
PDF = {http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/able/ftp/uml00/uml00.pdf},
PS = {http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/able/ftp/uml00/uml00.ps},
ABSTRACT = {Complex software systems require expressive notations for representing their software architectures. Two competing paths have emerged. One is to use a specialized notation for architecture -- or architecture description language (ADL). The other is to adapt a general-purpose modeling notation, such as UML. The latter has a number of benefits including familiarity to developers, close mapping to implementations, and commercial tool support. However, it remains an open question as to how best to use object-oriented notations for architectural description, and, indeed, whether they are sufficiently expressive, as currently defined. In this paper we take a systematic look at these questions, examining the space of possible mappings from ADLs into object notations. Specifically, we describe (a) the principle strategies for representing architectural structure in UML; (b) the benefits and limitations of each strategy; and (c) aspects of architectural description that are intrinsically difficult to model in UML using the strategies. },
KEYWORDS = {Software Architecture, UML}
}
|
|
