Authors:Maushumi Lahon,Uzzal Sharma,
AbstractArchitecture Evaluation is a means to reduce risk and save cost. It holds the key to success of the system being developed. Various evaluation methods exist which have specific objectives and basis and all contribute to enhance product quality. In this paper a Complexity UML Based Architecture Evaluation (CUBAE) approach is proposed to evaluate the architecture of a system built using CBSD approach. . The proposed approach estimates the complexity of the architecture from the UML representation of different views of the architecture. Earlier works on complexity measures of UML representations found in literature are used along with proposed measures for complexity calculation. This complexity measure may be used to assess and compare architecture representing the same system along with other measures like modifiability and different quality attributes used for evaluating the architecture.
I. B. Xu, D. Kang and J.Lu, ―”A structural complexity measure for UML class diagrams”, International Conference on Computational Science (ICCS 2004), Krakow Poland, June 2004, pp.431-435.
II. D.Kang, B. Xu, J. Lu and W.C. Chu, ―”A complexity measure for ontology based on UML”, IEEE 10th International Workshop on Future Trends in Distributed Computing Systems (FTDCS 2004), Suzhou, China, May 2004, pp.222-228.
III. E. Bouwers, C. Lilienthal, J. Visser, and A.V. Deursen , “A Cognitive Model for Software Architecture Complexity “,Proceedings of the International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC), IEEEComputerSociety, 2010. Software Engineering Research Group Technical Reports: http://www.se.ewi.tudelft.nl/techreports/.
IV. J.D. Thomas , Ph.D. Thesis, “Architecture Assessment of InformationSystem Families”, Department of Technology Management, Eindhoven University of Technology, February 2002.
V. M. Marchesi, OOA metrics for the unified modeling languages. In Proceedings of 2ndEuromicro Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR’98), Palazzo degli Affari, Italy, March, 1998,pp.67- 73.
VI. Nico Lassing, “Architecture-Level Modifiability Analysis”, Ph.D. thesis, Free University Amsterdam, February 2002.
VII. P. Kruchten,‖ Architectural Blueprints—The ―4+1” View Model of Software Architecture‖, IEEE Software 12 (6),November 1995, pp. 42-50.
VIII. P. Bengtsson, Ph..D. Thesis, “Architecture Level Modifiability Analysis‖, Department of Software Engineering and Computer Science, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden 2002.
IX. R. Kazman, M. Klein, and P. Clements, “ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation”, CMU/ SEI- 200 0- TR-0 04,ES C- TR- 200 0- 004.
X. R. Kazman,G. Abowd, L. Bass, & M. Webb, “SAAM: A Method for Analyzing the Properties of Software Architectures”,81-90. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering. Sorrento, Italy, May 1994.
XI. R. Kazman and M, Burth, “Assessing Architectural Complexity”, Proceedings of 2nd Euromicro Working Conference on Software Maintenance And Reengineering (CSMR 98), IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998.
XII. S.Sengupta, A. Kanjilal, “Measuring Complexity of Component Based Architecture : A Graph based Approach”, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, January 2011, DOI: 10.1145/1921532.1921546.
XIII. T.Yi,F. Wu,and C. Gan, “A Comparison of Metrics for UML Class Diagrams”, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Vol 25, Sept’2004.
XIV. https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/FactSheet/2018_010_001_515610.p df
XVI. “CBAM: Cost Benefit Analysis Method”, http://www.sei.cmu.edu/ata/products_services/ cbam. html
XVII. https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/233257/mappingbetween-41- architectural -view-model-uml dated 16/10/17
XVIII. www.fcgss.com, “Applying 4+1 View Architecture with UML 2”, White Paper, 2007.