1 / 24

Domain-specific Languages for Service-oriented architectures: an explorative study

Domain-specific Languages for Service-oriented architectures: an explorative study. Agenda. Problem Background Our Approach Study Details Study Results Future Work Conclusion. Problem. PROBLEM. PROBLEM. Domain Experts. High level of abstraction, domain-specific concepts.

giza
Download Presentation

Domain-specific Languages for Service-oriented architectures: an explorative 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. Domain-specific LanguagesforService-oriented architectures:an explorative study

  2. Agenda • Problem • Background • Our Approach • Study Details • Study Results • Future Work • Conclusion

  3. Problem

  4. PROBLEM

  5. PROBLEM Domain Experts High level of abstraction, domain-specificconcepts Low level of abstraction, technical-, technology-, platform-specificimplementations IT Developers

  6. BACKGROUND

  7. Domain-Specific Languages (DSL) • tailored for narrow domain • e.g. SQL • multiple levels of abstractions • business vs. technical experts

  8. Model-Driven Software Development (MDSD) • Functionality vs. Technology • Different Levels of Abstractions • Business Level: • no technical knowledge • Technology not important • IT Level: • multiple technologies • collaboration between technologies • changing permanently (e.g. versions)

  9. OUR APPROACH

  10. MDSD-based DSL

  11. Our Approach • Design decisions/Trade-offs • MDSD-based DSLs • basic SOA concerns • e.g. controlflow, informationflow • extensional SOA concerns • e.g. transactions, human interactions • non SOA concerns • e.g. pageflow of Web applications

  12. Claims • systematic development approach • multiple levels of abstractions • domain experts • IT experts • extension/integration points

  13. View-based Modeling Framework (VbMF)

  14. View-based Modeling Framework (VbMF)

  15. Pageflow of Web UIs

  16. Study Results • Claims: • systematic development approach • process-driven and non-process driven SOA • separation into high- and low-level DSLs • domain and IT experts • enhance understandability and readability • reduce complexity

  17. Study Results • Design Decisions: • DSL syntaxlanguage model • High-level models low-level models • multiple models one model

  18. Study Results • Trade-Offs: • Separation into high- and low-levels • redundancy in languages • inconsistencies • overlapping concerns • Detailed separation • complex model merging • less understandable and readable DSLs

  19. FUTURE Work

  20. FUTURE WORK • more experiments • process-driven SOA • non-process-driven SOA • non SOA • more design decisions/trade-offs • more evaluation

  21. CONCLUSION

  22. CONCLUSION • Problem • domain vs. IT experts • MDSD-based DSLs • Study Details & Results • Design decisions/Trade-offs • Three experiments • Future Work

More Related