1 / 12

Tektronix Oscilloscope  Case Study

Tektronix Oscilloscope  Case Study. Garlan & Shaw 1994. Challenge:  Product Family. Little reuse of sw between oscilliscopes Each product division did their own thing:  programming language, tools, conventions, etc.

denisefoster
Download Presentation

Tektronix Oscilloscope  Case Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tektronix Oscilloscope Case Study Garlan & Shaw 1994

  2. Challenge:  Product Family • Little reuse of sw between oscilliscopes • Each product division did their own thing:  programming language, tools, conventions, etc. • SW couldn't even be reused between two oscilliscopes from the same product division: rewrite for new HW • Lack of reuse was slowing down the business process • too long to release new oscilliscopes • too hard to adapt to specialized markets • Performance problems: • switching modes on the scope require loading all new sw • because of limited reuse, loading the sw took too long Can CMU save the day?

  3. Design 1: OO

  4. Pros: greater clarity about the domain / data types Unresolved: how do the types fit together? how should functionality be partitioned? with type of data being measured? externally? which objects should the UI interact with? Design 1: OO

  5. Design 2: Layers

  6. Pros: intuitively appealing Unresolved: strict layer model not appropriate for domain: users need to interact with functions at all levels Design 2: Layers

  7. Design 3: Pipe & Filter

  8. Pros: easy to compose functions in different ways similar to EE view of signal processing as a dataflow problem Unresolved: how do users interact with the system?  unclear. Design 3: Pipe & Filter

  9. Design 4: Modified Pipe & Filter

  10. Pros: benefits of Design 3 clear interface between UI and signal processing can think of filters as higher-order functions parameters determine which transformation is performed Unresolved: poor performance waveforms are large copying between filters is expensive filters run at different speeds Design 4: Modified Pipe & Filter

  11. "Coloured Pipes": may allow data to be processed without copying may allow data to be ignored by slow filters All issues resolved. Design 5: Coloured, Modified P&F

  12. A Fresh View of Compilers your independent reading

More Related