Home   Research Publications Members Related Software
IndexBrowse   BibliographiesMy selection
 Search: in   (word length ≥ 3)
      Login
Publication no #205   Download bibtex file Type :   Html | Bib | Both
Add to my selection
Beyond Definition/Use: Architectural Interconnection

Robert Allen and David Garlan.


In Proceedings of the ACM Interface Definition Language Workshop, Vol. 29(8), SIGPLAN Notices, August 1994.

Online links: PDF PS

Abstract
Large software systems require decompositional mechanisms in order to make them tractable. Traditionally, MILs and IDLs have played this role by providing notations based on definition/use bindings. In this paper we argue that current MIL/IDLs based on definition/use have some serious drawbacks. A significant problem is that they fail to distinguish between 'implementation' and 'interaction' relationships between modules. We propose an alternative model in which components interact along well-defined lines of communication - or connectors. Connectors are defined as protocols that capture the expected patterns of communication between modules. We show how this leads to a scheme that is much more expressive for architectural relationships, that allows the formal definition of module interaction, and that supports its own form of automated checks and formal reasoning.

Keywords: Software Architecture, Wright.  
@InProceedings{Allen94MIL,
      AUTHOR = {Allen, Robert and Garlan, David},
      TITLE = {Beyond Definition/Use: Architectural Interconnection},
      YEAR = {1994},
      MONTH = {August},
      BOOKTITLE = {Proceedings of the ACM Interface Definition Language Workshop},
      KEY = {Allen},
      VOLUME = {29},
      NUMBER = {8},
      PUBLISHER = {SIGPLAN Notices},
      PDF = {http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/able/ftp/connectors-idl94/connectors-idl94.pdf},
      PS = {http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/able/ftp/connectors-idl94/connectors-idl94.ps},
      ABSTRACT = {Large software systems require decompositional mechanisms in order to make them tractable. Traditionally, MILs and IDLs have played this role by providing notations based on definition/use bindings. In this paper we argue that current MIL/IDLs based on definition/use have some serious drawbacks. A significant problem is that they fail to distinguish between 'implementation' and 'interaction' relationships between modules. We propose an alternative model in which components interact along well-defined lines of communication - or connectors. Connectors are defined as protocols that capture the expected patterns of communication between modules. We show how this leads to a scheme that is much more expressive for architectural relationships, that allows the formal definition of module interaction, and that supports its own form of automated checks and formal reasoning.},
      KEYWORDS = {Software Architecture, Wright}
}
    Created: 2006-08-22 17:30:58     Modified: 2006-08-22 17:32:18
Feedback: ABLE Webmaster
Last modified: Sat October 12 2019 16:15:32
        BibAdmin