Abstract
BackgroundDue to the abstract nature of software architecture concepts, ensuring the correct implementation of architectural decisions is not a trivial task. Divergences between the planned architecture and source code may occur in the early stages of the software development, which denotes a phenomenon known as software architecture erosion. Architectural conformance checking techniques have been proposed to tackle the problem of divergences between the planned architecture and source code. Among such techniques, we can note the DCL (dependency constraint language), which is a domain-specific language that has interesting results in architectural conformance contexts. However, the current version of DCL has some limitations, such as lack of modularity and low degree of reuse, which may prevent its adoption in real software development scenarios. In this article, we extend DCL with a reusable, modular, and hierarchical specification.MethodWe propose and evaluate DCL 2.0—an extension of the original DCL—and its tool in a real-world development scenario of a large system used by a government branch of Minas Gerais, Brazil.ResultWe were able to detect 771 architectural violations where 74% of them could only be detected due to the new violation types proposed in DCL 2.0.ConclusionBy using DCL 2.0 herein presented, it was possible to conclude the following: (i) DCL 2.0 proved importance in helping the development team consistently address violations, and (ii) after using DCL 2.0 for months, the number of architectural violations being committed into the system branches was reduced to zero. Therefore, we argue that DCL 2.0 can have a positive impact on the architectural conformance of systems.
Highlights
Software architecture is commonly considered a set of decisions and conventions that determine how to build a system, i.e., the architecture states the software’s fundamental parts as well as the responsibilities and interaction of those parts
By using Dependency constraint language (DCL) 2.0 presented, it was possible to conclude the following: (i) DCL 2.0 proved importance in helping the development team consistently address violations, and (ii) after using DCL 2.0 for months, the number of architectural violations being committed into the system branches was reduced to zero
When we consider the time of the case study (10 months) where we installed our DCL2Check tool to aid in architectural conformance process, the results indicate that the development team was able to control and handle architectural violations
Summary
Software architecture is commonly considered a set of decisions and conventions that determine how to build a system, i.e., the architecture states the software’s fundamental parts as well as the responsibilities and interaction of those parts. Other studies present scenarios where software source code, during its evolution, gradually loses its adherence to the architecture; this phenomenon is known as software architecture erosion [7–9]. Divergences between the planned architecture and source code may occur in the early stages of the software development, which denotes a phenomenon known as software architecture erosion. Architectural conformance checking techniques have been proposed to tackle the problem of divergences between the planned architecture and source code Among such techniques, we can note the DCL (dependency constraint language), which is a domain-specific language that has interesting results in architectural conformance contexts. When developers mistakenly violate these decisions, this leads to the software architecture erosion phenomenon This gap between implementation and architecture causes the system to fail to satisfy some of the intended nonfunctional properties [14]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
