220 likes | 375 Views
A R eference Architecture for Integrated Development And Run-time Environments. Hossein Tajalli and Nenad Medvidovic. Software Development Environments. Augment or automate activities and processes in the software life-cycle Spanning requirements elicitation and negotiation Design
E N D
A Reference Architecture for Integrated Development And Run-time Environments HosseinTajalli and Nenad Medvidovic
Software Development Environments • Augment or automate activities and processes in the software life-cycle • Spanning requirements elicitation and negotiation • Design • Implementation • Testingand debugging • Deployment • Maintenance • Evolution • Co-ordination of ideas, artifacts, and resources among involved people
Run-time Tools • Classical environments • To support exploratory style of programming • Run-time tools to execute programs and alter running programs • E.g. Interlisp [Tei81], Smalltalk [Gol83], Cedar [Swi85], and The Rational Environment [Arc86] • Modern environments • To support self-adaptive software systems • Self-Adaptive Life-cycle Environments (SALEs) • Run-time tools to calculate, validate, and perform run-time adaptation • E.g. SADE [Don09], PESOI [Tsa06a], PBAAM [Geo04], Rainbow [Che08], and ArchStudio [Das07] Existence of run-time tools resulted in the integration of development and run-time Environments in this systems.
Common Architecture for Self-adaptive Software Systems Monitors Adapts Maintains
Advantages of SALEs • Providing artifact updates directly to the adaptation engine • Providing consistent user interfaces to set and control the behavior of the adaptation engine • Orchestration and integration of the adaptation engine with other tools to design, generate, validate, and test software adaptation artifacts • Providing feedback from run-time environment to development environment using adaptation engine
Disadvantages of SALEs • Development and run-time environments have to run concurrently • Lower availability • Higher resource consumption
iDARE A reference architecture for integrated Development And Run-time Environments • Inspired by SALEs • Based on a new perspective: interaction with the run-time environments • To study and understand development environments • Captures the architecture of disparate development environments • Improve availability and resource consumption of SALEs
Environments with No Interaction • Traditional programming paradigms • IntegralC[Ros87], OOT [Man93b], Unix/PWB [Dol84], VMX VAXset [vms84], Rigi [Mul88], PCTE [Bou88], CAIS [Mun89], Aspect [Bro91], SoftBench [Bro92], DSEE [Leb84], Istar [Dow87], Inscape [Per87,Per89], and SLCSE [Str89] • Multi-agent systems • AgentBuilder1[Ric00], AgentTool[Loa01] 1 www.agentBuilder.com
Environments with Limited Co-operation • Traditional programming paradigms • DYMOS [Coo83], Erlang [Erl97], Conic [Mag89], Argus [Lis88,Blo93], and Reconfigurable PolyLith [Hof93] • Multi-agent systems • JADE [Bel01], Zeus [Nwa99], MAGE [Shi04], Jason [Bor05], and Visual Soar [Fai96] • Service-oriented systems • IBM SOA Foundation Architecture [Hig05], Microsoft Whitehorse Project [Wil04], and JBoss1Enterprise SOA Platform • Component-based systems • Archstudio 2.0 [Ore00] 1 www.jboss.org
Environments for Exploratory Style • Examples: Interlisp [Tei81], Smalltalk [Gol83], Cedar [Swi85], • and The Rational Environment [Arc86]
Environments for SALEs • Examples: SADE [Don09], PESOI [Tsa06a], PBAAM [Geo04], • Rainbow [Che08], ArchStudio [Das07]
Re-cast Example: PBAAM The Policy-Based Architectural Adaptation Management (PBAAM) [Geo08] is an automated approach to architectural software adaptation.
Disadvantages of SALEs • Development and run-time environments have to run concurrently • Lower availability • Higher resource consumption The detachable tools in iDARE are intended to solve these problems.
PLASMA Our ongoing work on the context of the PLASMA [Taj10] has provided preliminary evidence of iDARE’s utility.
Conclusions • iDARE reference architecture • Study and understand development Environments • New perspective: run-time plug-ins • Improve availability and resource consumption of SALEs • Classifications of development environments
Some of the References [Tei81] W. Teitelman and L. Masinter, “The Interlisp programming environment,” Computer, vol. 14, pp. 25–33, April 1981. [Gol83] A. Goldberg, “The influence of an object-oriented language on the programming environment,” in Proceedings of the 1983 computer science conference, ser. CSC-83. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 1983, pp. 35–54. [Swi85] D. C. Swinehart et al., “The structure of Cedar,” SIGPLAN Not., vol. 20, pp. 230–244, June 1985. [Arc86] J. E. J. Archer and M. T. Devlin, “Rational’s experience using Ada for very large systems,” in First International Conference on Ada (R) Programming Language Applications for the NASA Space Station, vol. 12, NASA, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, 1986, pp. 08–61. [Don09]M. Dong et al., “SADE: a developmentenvironment for adaptive multi-agent systems,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Principles of Practice in Multi-Agent Systems, ser. PRIMA ’09. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2009, pp. 516–524. [Tsa06] W.-T. Tsai et al., “PESOI: Process embedded service-oriented architecture,” Journal of Software, vol. 17, pp. 1470–1484, 2006. [Geo04] J. C. Georgas and R. N. Taylor, “Towards a knowledge-based approach to architectural adaptation management,” in 1st ACM SIGSOFT Workshop on Self-managed Systems, 2004. [Che08] S.-W. Cheng, “Rainbow: Cost-effective software architecture-based self-adaptation,” Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, 2008. [Geo08] J. C. Georgas, “Supporting architecture- and policy-based self-adaptive software systems,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine, 2008. [Taj10] H. Tajalli et al., “PLASMA: a plan-based layered architecture for software model-driven adaptation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM international conference on Automated software engineering, ser. ASE ’10. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2010, pp. 467–476.