当前位置：文档库 › 高级软件架构设计论文p7

高级软件架构设计论文p7

ABSTRACT

Software architectures promote development focused on modular functional building blocks (components), their interconnections (configurations), and their interactions (connectors). Since archi-tecture-level components often contain complex functionality, it is reasonable to expect that their interactions will be complex as well. Middleware technologies such as CORBA, COM, and RMI, pro-vide a set of predefined services for enabling component composi-tion and interaction. However, the potential role of such services in the implementations of software architectures is not well under-stood. Furthermore, components adhering to one middleware stan-dard cannot readily interact with those adhering to another. In order to understand the role and tradeoffs among middleware technolo-gies in implementing architectures and enable component interop-erability across middleware platforms, we have investigated a set of techniques and conducted preliminary case studies involving a particular architectural style, C2, and its implementation infrastruc-ture. In particular, by encapsulating middleware functionality within C2’s explicit software connectors, we have been able to couple C2’s existing benefits such as component interchangeabil-ity, substrate independence, and structural guidance with new capa-bilities of multi-lingual, multi-process, and distributed application development in a manner that is transparent to architects. Further-more, we have demonstrated the utility of our connector-based approach in enabling components implemented on top of different middleware platforms to interoperate. Though several details of our approach derive from the characteristics of the C2 style, we believe that a number of lessons learned are more generally appli-cable. We argue that these lessons can help form a broader research agenda for coupling the modeling power of software architectures with the implementation support provided by middleware.

1INTRODUCTION

The software systems of today are rapidly growing in number, sophistication, size, complexity, amount of distribution, and num-ber of users. This information technology boom has been fueled by the increased affordability of hardware and the evolution of the Internet from a novelty gadget of the “technological elite” to a crit-ical world-wide resource. As a result, the demand for software applications is far outpacing our ability to produce them, both in terms of their sheer numbers and their desired quality [Sta98]. Most notable about current software engineering practice is the continued preponderance of ad-hoc development approaches, driven by industry needs, commercial interests, and market pres-sures, rather than well-understood scientific principles. The magni-tude of this situation has been recognized and is reflected in the recent U.S. President’s Information Technology Advisory Com-mittee (PITAC) report [P99]. In particular, the PITAC report iden-tified several issues of large-scale software development, including component-based development, software reuse, and software interoperability, as major software engineering challenges. These issues have been extensively explored in the past decade, resulting in numerous commercial component interoperability or middleware technologies that have been adopted as de facto stan-dards (e.g., CORBA [OHE96], (D)COM [Ses97], OLE [Cha96], ActiveX [Cha96], Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) [FFCM99], Java RMI [Sun], DCE [Sch93], SoftBench [Cag90], ToolTalk [JH93]), as well as a number of widely-studied, research-oriented middle-ware technologies (Q [MHO96], Field [Rei90], Polylith [Pur94], JEDI [CDF98], SIENA [CRW01]). One can use any one of these technologies to develop software systems from existing compo-nents more quickly and reliably than was generally possible in the past. Yet ironically, the proprietary nature of these middleware technologies has served to hinder interoperability between compo-nents developed according to different technologies. For example, the developers of COM components must modify or reimplement those components for use in a system based on CORBA. More-over, even components implemented using different flavors of CORBA may not be interoperable (although this problem has been addressed for more recent versions of CORBA via its IIOP proto-col). The result is a highly fragmented software component mar-ketplace that ultimately impedes the ability of software organizations to develop systems with the highest possible quality and reliability, at the lowest possible cost. Another problem area has been the training of software engineers in the principles of component-based software development: it is currently mired in the details and peculiarities of a few chosen technologies, instead of focusing on underlying common principles and mechanisms. Another research and development thrust, actively pursued in par-allel with that on middleware, has been software development with an explicit focus on common architectural idioms [PW92, SG96, MT00]. In particular, software architecture research is directed at reducing the costs and improving the quality of applications by shifting the development focus from lines-of-code to coarser-grained architectural elements (components and connectors) and their overall interconnection structure (configurations). Addition-

On the Role of Middleware in

Architecture-Based Software Development

Nenad Medvidovic

Computer Science Department

University of Southern California

Los Angeles, CA 90089-0781, USA

neno@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2a12997307.html,

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for

personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies

are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that

copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy

otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,

SEKE '02, July 15-19, 2002, Ischia, Italy.

ally, architectures separate computation in a system (performed by components) from interaction among the components (facilitated by connectors). This enables developers to abstract away the unnecessary details and focus on the “big picture:” system-level structure and behavior, high-level communication protocols, com-ponent deployment, and so forth. Software architects also have at their disposal a number of architectural styles—collections of recurring structural, behavioral, and interaction patterns—with well-understood properties.

Architectures and middleware address similar problems—large-scale, component-based development—but at different stages of the development lifecycle. While architecture is an early model of a system that highlights the system’s critical conceptual properties using high-level abstractions, middleware enables that system’s realization and ensures the proper composition and interaction of the implemented components. Most existing architecture modeling and analysis approaches have suffered from the inability to map architectural decisions to the system’s implementation in an auto-mated and property-preserving manner [MT00]. At the same time,software development based purely on middleware can, in many ways, be regarded as the “assembly programming” of software composition [OMTR98]: a middleware technology provides no support for determining the application’s structure and behavior,selecting the needed components, or interconnecting the compo-nents into the desired topologies.

The relationship between the two areas and their respective short-comings suggest the possibility of coupling architecture modeling and analysis approaches with middleware technologies in order to get “the best of both worlds.” Given that architectures are intended to describe systems at a high-level of abstraction, directly refining an architectural model into a design or implementation may not be possible. One reason is that the decision space rapidly expands with the decrease in abstraction levels: at the design level, con-structs such as classes with attributes, operations, and associations,instances of objects collaborating in a scenario, and so forth, are identified; the implementation further requires the selection and instantiation of specific data structures and algorithms, interopera-tion with existing libraries, deployment of modules across process and machine boundaries, and so forth. One proposed solution to

this problem has been to provide mechanisms for refining an archi-tectural model into its implementation via a sequence of intermedi-ate models [MQR95, LV95, AM99, MRRR02]. However, the resulting approaches have had to trade off the engineer’s confi-dence in the fidelity of a lower-level model to the higher-level one against the practicality of the adopted technique [MT00]. Further-more, to a large extent, the existing refinement approaches have failed to take advantage of a growing body of existing (imple-mented) components that may be reusable “as is.”

This paper pursues another strategy, depicted in Figure 1. The goal is to bound the target (implementation) space to a specific, well-defined subspace by employing (a set of) middleware technolo-gies. The paper presents a technique for exploiting a particular architectural construct, software connector, to achieve the desired result in a manner that minimizes the effect of the chosen middle-ware on the interacting components. Indeed, our approach enables,e.g., CORBA components to interact via, e.g., Java’s RMI in prin-ciple. We have conducted a series of case studies to validate our hypothesis. A specific architectural style, C2, has been used as the basis for this investigation [TMA+96, MRT99]. Our initial results are promising and indicate that a successful marriage of architec-ture- and middleware-based techniques and technologies is indeed possible. At the same time, this initial experience also points to certain deficiencies of basing our approach solely on connectors.We use these deficiencies as the motivation for a broader study of component-based development, interoperability, and the relation-ship between middleware and architectures. These issues comprise a research agenda that frames our future work.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 pro-vides a brief description of the C2 architectural style and the con-nectors it employs. Section 3 describes our approach to providing “middleware-enabled” connectors and discusses how those con-nectors are used to enable the interaction of components compliant with heterogeneous middleware. A discussion of lessons learned and future work rounds out the paper.

2OVERVIEW OF THE C2 STYLE

We have chosen the C2 architectural style as a foundation upon which to initially explore the issues of integrating middleware with software architectures. The C2 style is a good fit for this task for several reasons. C2 has an explicit notion of software connectors as first-class entities that handle component interactions. The style provides facilities for exploring specific properties of connectors such as filtering, routing, and broadcasting, which are also typi-cally provided by middleware. Further, the style is well-suited to a distributed setting, allowing us to leverage the networking capabil-ities of middleware technologies. C2 supports a paradigm for com-posing systems in which components may be running in a distributed, heterogeneous environment without shared address spaces, architectures may be changed dynamically, multiple users may be interacting with the system, multiple user interface toolkits may be employed, and multiple media types may be involved.The C2 style can be informally summarized as a network of con-current components hooked together by connectors. All communi-cation among components in an architecture is achieved by exchanging messages via connectors. Message-based communica-

tion is extensively used in distributed environments for which C2

Figure 1. The decision space grows as a system is refined from an architecture to an implementation. Middleware technologies can be employed to bound the implementation space and render the mapping from architecture to implementation more tractable.

is suited. Each component may have its own thread(s) of control. This simplifies modeling and implementation of multi-component, multi-user, and concurrent applications and enables exploitation of distributed platforms. A proposed architecture is distinct from its implementation(s) so that it is indeed possible for components to share threads of control. The separation of architecture from imple-mentation is a key aspect of our approach to integrating middle-ware technologies with C2, as discussed in Section 3. Finally, there is no assumption of a shared address space among C2 components. Any premise of a shared address space could be unreasonable in an architectural style that allows composition of heterogeneous, highly distributed components, developed in different languages, with their own threads of control, and internal architectures.

As already discussed, central to our approach are software connec-tors, architecture-level abstractions and facilities that bind compo-nents together into an architecture and facilitate their interactions [SG96]. Connectors manifest themselves in a software system as shared variable accesses, table entries, buffers, procedure calls, remote procedure calls (RPC), network protocols, pipes, and so on [SG96, MT00]. In large, and especially distributed systems, con-nectors become key determinants of system properties, such as performance, resource utilization, global rates of flow, and security [MMP00]. Abstracting and encapsulating interaction details within architectural connectors has shown a lot of promise in helping to address traditional software development challenges: scalability, distribution, concurrency, runtime adaptability, code mobility, and so forth [SDK+95, SG96, AG97, OMT98, KM98].

We have extensively employed connectors in our previous research to support software modeling, analysis, generation, evolution, reuse, and heterogeneity [TMA+96, MOT97, MT97, OMT98, MRT99]. In particular, connectors in the C2 style may be con-nected to any number of components as well as other connectors.

A connector’s responsibilities include message routing, broadcast, and filtering. C2 connectors also support adaptation of messages to accommodate mismatched interfaces and interaction protocols [TMA+96, MOT97].

To support implementation of C2-style architectures, we have developed an extensible framework of abstract classes for concepts such as components, connectors, and messages, as shown in Figure 2 [MMM02]. This framework is the basis of development and middleware integration in C2.1 As we will discuss, the framework encapsulates all access to integrated middleware, ensuring that the use of middleware is transparent to an architect, and, indeed, to the implementor of a particular architecture. The framework, together with any employed middleware, directly enables the support for automatic (partial) application generation from an architecture in our DRADEL tool suite [MRT99]. The framework implements inter-connection and message passing protocols. Components and con-nectors used in C2-style applications are subclassed from the appropriate abstract classes in the framework. This guarantees their interoperability, eliminates many repetitive programming tasks, and allows developers of C2 applications to focus on appli-cation-level issues. The framework supports a variety of imple-mentation configurations for a given architecture: the entire resulting system may execute in a single thread of control, or each component may run in its own thread of control or operating sys-tem (OS) process. To date, the framework has been implemented in C, C++, Java, Ada, and Python.

2.1 Example C2-Style Application

An application that was extensively used in our investigation of middleware integration with C2 is a version of the video game KLAX. A description of the game is given in Figure 3. This partic-ular application was chosen because game play imposes real-time constraints on the application, bringing performance issues to the forefront. The application architecture is depicted in Figure 4. The components that make up the KLAX game can be divided into three logical groups. At the top of the architecture are the compo-nents that encapsulate the game’s state. The game state compo-nents respond to request messages and emit notifications of internal state changes. Notification messages are directed to the next level, where they are received by both the game logic compo-nents and the artist components. The game logic components request changes of game state in accordance with game rules and interpret the change notifications to determine the state of the game in progress. The artist components also receive notifications of game state changes, causing them to update their depictions. Each artist maintains the state of a set of abstract graphical objects which, when modified, send state change notifications in the hope that a lower-level graphics component will render them on the screen. GraphicsBinding receives all notifications about the state of the artists’ graphical objects and translates them into calls to a window system. User events, such as a key press, are translated by GraphicsBinding into requests to the artist components.

We used the deployment profile shown in Figure 4 to examine the issues in using middleware technologies to implement architec-tures, although a number of other deployments are clearly possible. Two KLAX implementations were built using the C++ and Java versions of the framework shown in Figure 2. A variation of the architecture shown in Figure 4 was also used as the basis of a dis-tributed, multi-player KLAX application implemented using the Java framework. In this variation, each player executes a copy of KLAX on his own machine. A player competes against other game participants by issuing requests to a remote, central GameServer to, e.g., add an extra tile to a given player’s chute. The GameServer, in turn, notifies the appropriate players of the changes to their states in response to their opponent’s action.

C2Object

C2Message

C2Request

C2Notification

C2Port

C2Port_FIFO

C2Brick

C2Connector

C2Connector_SameProcess

C2Connector_Thread

C2Connector_IPC

C2Component

C2Architecture

C2Component_Threads

C2Architecture_Threads

Figure 2. C2 implementation framework.

1.It has been argued by others [DR99, YBB99] that this frame-

work is similar to commercial middleware platforms, such as

CORBA and COM.

Performance of the different implementations of KLAX easily exceeds human reaction time if the ClockLogic component is set to use short time intervals. Although we have not yet tried to opti-mize performance, benchmarks indicate that the C++ framework can send 1200 simple messages per second when sending and receiving components are in the same process, with the Java framework being somewhat slower. In single-player KLAX, a key-stroke typically causes 10 to 30 message sends, and a tick of the clock typically causes 3 to 20 message sends. The efficiency of message exchange across process and/or machine boundaries is a function of the network bandwidth and the underlying mechanism (i.e., middleware) used to implement the given inter-process/machine connector.

3EMPLOYING MIDDLEWARE TO

IMPLEMENT SOFTWARE CONNECTORS

The predominant focus of component-based software development has been on designing, selecting, adapting, implementing, and integrating computational elements—software components. Since components may contain complex functionality, it is reasonable to expect that their interactions will be complex as well. Existing middleware technologies have addressed component interaction via a predefined set of capabilities (e.g., RPC) that is typically not intended to be extensible. These capabilities are usually packaged into a facility, such as an object request broker (ORB), a message broker (MOM), or a software bus [Rei90, Cag90, Pur94, ISG97,IMA98].2 As foreshadowed above, our approach to coupling the benefits of architecture- and middleware-based development approaches will focus on component interactions and leverage ORBs. Thus, our primary hypothesis is that connectors are the proper abstraction for integrating architectures and middleware.This hypothesis is motivated by the recognition that, though differ-ent, ORBs and connectors share several key characteristics.Indeed, an ORB can be viewed as an implementation of a sophisti-cated connector that supports a large set of interaction protocols and services. This perspective suggests our general approach: a software architect designs an application in the most appropriate and intuitive way, selects one or more middleware platforms that are suitable for implementing the architecture, maps the architec-ture to a particular topology (sometimes imposed by the middle-ware [DR99]), selects the needed set of off-the-shelf (OTS)components, and uses the appropriate ORBs to implement the con-nectors in the architecture.

A simple example that illustrates this strategy is shown in Figure 4.A conceptual architecture of a system is shown on the left. In this case, the C2 style mandates that information flow only up and down through the connector (e.g., Comp1 and Comp3 cannot directly interact, while Comp1 and Comp2 can). Assume we want to implement the architecture with components bound to a given middleware and to distribute the implementation over three loca-tions. The top-right diagram depicts the resulting solution: the sin-gle OR

B ensures the cross-machine interaction of its attached components, but not the topological and interaction constraints imposed by the style. Also note that, if the four components are not all built on top of the same middleware infrastructure (e.g.,CORBA), the engineers will depend on existing point solutions or will have to develop the needed inter-middleware bridge as yet another point (likely, ad-hoc) solution.

Our approach, depicted on the bottom-right of Figure 4, enables a more principled way of integrating architectures and middleware.The approach also allows bridging middleware, i.e., the interaction of components adhering to different middleware standards (e.g.,CORBA and COM). We keep connectors as an explicit part of a system’s implementation infrastructure, as discussed in the context of Figure 2. Each component thus only exchanges information

2.Keeping these distinct categories of middleware in mind, in the interest of simplicity we will refer to the different interaction facilities provided by middleware simply as “ORBs” in the

remainder of this section.

KLAX Chute

Tiles of random colors KLAX Palette

Palette catches tiles coming down the Chute and drops them into the Well.

KLAX Well

Horizontal, vertical, and drop at random times diagonal sets of three or more consecutive tiles of the same color are removed and any tiles above them collapse down to fill in the newly-created empty spaces.

and locations.

KLAX Status

Figure 3. A screenshot and description of our implementation of the KLAX video game.

Figure 4. Conceptual C2 architecture for KLAX. Shaded ovals represent process/machine boundaries.

with a connector to which it is attached; in turn, the connector will (re)package that information and deliver it to its recipients using one or more middleware technologies. Each such “middleware enabled” connector is a variant of a standard connector (recall Fig-ure 2); it changes the underlying mechanism for marshalling and delivering messages, but externally appears unchanged. This approach minimizes the effects on a given component of varying application deployment profiles and of using components that adhere to heterogeneous middleware standards. Note that, unlike the “middleware-only” solution shown in the top-right diagram,the bottom-right diagram of Figure 4 also preserves the topological and stylistic constraints of the application. Furthermore, the con-nector allows Comp1 and Comp2 to interact efficiently, using the in-process (i.e., C2 implementation framework) mechanisms while, at the same time, interacting with Comp3 and Comp4 using the inter-process (i.e., OTS middleware) mechanisms.

We have developed and used two different techniques that enable us to use middleware in the context of an architecture as outlined in Figure 4. Both of these techniques consist of implementing a single conceptual software connector using two or more actual connectors that are linked across process or network boundaries via a given middleware technology. Each actual connector thus becomes a segment of a single “virtual connector.” All access to the underlying middleware technology is encapsulated entirely within the abstraction of a connector, meaning that it is unseen by both architects and developers, as well as the interacting compo-nents.

We call the first approach “lateral welding.” It is depicted in the top diagram of Figure 5. Messages sent to any segment of the multi-process connector are broadcast to all other segments via the underlying middleware. Upon receiving a message, each segment has the responsibility of filtering and forwarding the message to components in its process as appropriate.

While the lateral welding approach allows us to “vertically slice” a C2 application, we also developed an approach to “horizontally slice” an application, as shown in the bottom diagram of Figure 5.This approach is similar to the idea of lateral welding: a conceptual connector is broken up into top and bottom segments, each of which exhibits the same properties as a single-process connector to

ever, the segments themselves are joined using the appropriate middleware.

These two techniques have been implemented using five different middleware technologies: ILU [Xerox], VisiBroker CORBA [Inpr], RMI [Sun], Polylith [Pur94], and Q [MHO96]. The result-ing connectors are arbitrarily composable to support any deploy-ment profile or middleware platform. The motivation for such a composition is that different middleware technologies may have unique benefits. By combining multiple such technologies in a sin-gle application, the application can potentially obtain the benefits of all of them. For instance, a middleware technology that supports multiple platforms but only a single language, such as RMI, could be combined with one that supports multiple languages but a single platform, such as Q, to create an application that supports both multiple languages and multiple platforms.

The advantages of combining multiple middleware technologies within software connectors are manifold. In the absence of a single panacea solution that supports all required platforms, languages,and network protocols, the ability to leverage the capabilities of several different middleware technologies significantly widens the range of applications that can be implemented within an architec-tural style such as C2. We believe that the key challenge is to develop the inter-middleware “bridge” to allow two or more tech-nologies to exchange data; once the bridge is developed, it is usable indefinitely thereafter. We have tested this hypothesis by combining the lateral welding and horizontal slicing techniques from Figure 5 to implement a single conceptual connector in the KLAX application (recall Figure 4) using Xerox’s ILU and Java’s RMI middleware. An example of this combined binding method is shown in Figure 6: our approach creates a three-process “virtual connector” using two in-process C2 connectors to bind two multi-

Figure 4. Realizing a software architecture (left ) using a middleware technology (top-right ) and an explicit, middleware-enabled software connector (bottom-right ).

process connectors. Note that an alternative approach would have been to create a single implementation-level connector that sup-ported both ILU and RMI. However, the approach we adopted is compositional and, therefore, more flexible, with a slight effi-ciency cost due to the addition of in-process connectors to bind the multi-process connectors.

In all the examples shown thus far, the components have been treated as homogeneous (i.e., they adhere to the same architectural style, are implemented in a single language, and/or on top of the same platform). While the underlying mechanisms employed to enable the components’ interactions have varied, each middle-ware-enabled connector discussed above exports a message-based interface understood by C2 components. It is important to point out that this does not mean that we have adopted message-passing as the solution to the problem of software interoperability, replac-ing the proprietary interaction mechanisms employed by various middleware with one of our own. The approach described above provides the implementation power and flexibility to construct connectors that enable the interaction of heterogeneous compo-nents across middleware platforms. Again, the challenge is to iso-late the inter-middleware bridge inside a connector, such that components on both sides of the connector can assume that they are still residing in a homogeneous (e.g., C2-only or CORBA-only) environment. One such connector we have constructed enables the interaction of C2 and CORBA components. So, for example, in the bottom diagram shown in Figure 5, Comp1 and Comp3 would be C2 components, while Comp2 and Comp4 are VisiBroker CORBA components; Comp1 and Comp3 assume that they are interacting with other C2 components via a C2 connector, while Comp2 and Comp4 assume that they are interacting with other CORBA components via an ORB.

Another aspect of heterogeneity is the components’ implementa-tion in different languages. For example, we have used Q to enable the interaction among components written in C++ and Ada. Spe-cifically, one configuration of the KLAX application (recall Figure 4) involved the TileArtist component implemented in Ada, while the rest of the architecture was implemented using C2’s C++ framework. The connectors on top and bottom of TileArtist used Q to bridge the two languages.We should note that these two examples (interoperability between C2 and CORBA, and Ada and C++, respectively) did not require specialized solutions, but were simple variations of our solution depicted in Figure 5. If we consider the C2 implementation frame-work to be a custom middleware platform for C2-style applications as argued by [DR99, YBB99], then the encapsulation of third-party ORBs inside C2’s connectors is nothing more than a compo-sition of two or more inter-middleware bridges. For example, interoperability between C2 and CORBA is achieved by compos-ing a C2-CORBA bridge with a CORBA-C2 bridge, as depicted in Figure 7. Each such bridge (e.g., the top half of the figure) may be used independently as an inter-middleware connector. Further-more, it is possible to invert the bridges such that, in the example shown in Figure 7, the underlying mechanism for CORBA compo-nent interaction is C2 message passing.

4CONCLUSIONS

Ensuring interoperability is a critical issue in the quickly-emerging marketplace of heterogeneous software components. The unfortu-nate reality is that competing middleware vendors vying for mar-ket dominance have ended up constructing incompatible, proprietary component and middleware standards. The current sit-uation can be characterized as a “component tower of Babel:”components “speaking” the same language are interoperable, while those “speaking” different languages are not. Although several technologies to bridge middleware platforms have been proposed and implemented (e.g., COM-EJB [Ver99] or CORBA-COM [Con98, Gar99]), these are usually pairwise solutions that are directly dependent upon the characteristics of the involved middle-ware and provide little, if any, guidance as to how a similar out-come can be achieved with a different set of middleware platforms. Furthermore, although “architecture” is a frequently used term in the context of middleware technologies, middleware providers do not focus on guiding developers to achieve a suitable architecture for their systems, but rather propose a solution based solely around their implementation-level infrastructures. This “one size fits all”mentality is also reflected in the failure of middleware providers to acknowledge that their technologies impose certain stylistic con-straints on component composition and interaction [DR99].

This paper has presented an approach that has the potential to rem-edy this situation. The approach directly exploits architectural con-structs (styles and connectors) and provides a principled, repeatable solution to the problem of bridging middleware. We

Figure 6. An example of a three-process C2 application using different middleware packages. A single virtual connector is implemented with two in-process and two multi-process connectors. The in-process connectors facilitate message passing between the multi-process connectors. Shaded ovals represent process boundaries.Figure 7. A middleware-enabled C2 connector is a composition of two inter-middleware connectors.

have employed sets of both commercial (RMI, VisiBroker) and research (ILU, Polylith, Q) OTS technologies to test our hypothe-sis that software connectors are the proper mechanisms for sup-porting middleware-based implementation of architectures. Our results to date are preliminary, but quite promising: note that the details of the examples discussed above varied widely, yet the same basic integration techniques, shown in Figures 5 and 7, were used across all of them. At the same time, we acknowledge that these results are not definitive and that there are several issues that must be studied in order to render this work more general and assess the true extent of its applicability:

?We must have a better understanding of the underlying proper-ties, both shared and proprietary, of middleware technologies in order to provide general, reusable, and automatable solutions.?We must understand the role of and constraints imposed by architectural styles other than C2 in enabling middleware inte-gration.

?Finally, we must understand the issues in applying this tech-nique to connector types beyond message passing. To this end, we intend to leverage our recent work that has resulted in a com-prehensive taxonomy of software connectors [MMP00].

To address the issues identified above, our future work will involve a more comprehensive approach to investigating the role of mid-dleware in implementing software architectures and exploiting architectural abstractions and mechanisms to enable cross-middle-ware interoperability. Our work will span three key facets [MGR00]: improving our understanding of the relationship between middleware and software architectures [DR99], analyzing and codifying the underlying building blocks common to all mid-dleware platforms [KG98, KG99], and further exploring the role and limitations of software connectors in achieving general solu-tions to the problem of heterogeneous component-based develop-ment. A critical issue we must address is the extent to which our solutions must be pairwise (in the sense of, for example, requiring N2 inter-middleware connectors for N middleware technologies). Our initial results, discussed in Section 3, indicate that it is possible to provide compositional inter-middleware connectors such that pairwise solutions can be avoided. We intend to leverage our codi-fication of middleware services in constructing general connectors that can accommodate multiple, arbitrarily chosen technologies at once. Ideally, we would be able to provide a single, general solu-tion for each technology; the solutions would be reusable indefi-nitely thereafter, even as new interoperability technologies are defined. We must also evaluate the tradeoffs (such as reliability, quality of service, and performance) between the different cross-middleware interoperability approaches that we investigate.

The benefits of this work will accrue from large amounts of legacy software at one’s disposal and the knowledge of what (types of) components can be (re)used in an application and under what cir-cumstances. In turn, in tandem with related academic and industry-led work, this research has the potential to influence the next gen-eration of interoperability standards and provide the underpinning of a true, open component marketplace.

5ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank E. Dashofy and R. N. Taylor for their contributions to the work described in this paper. This mate-rial is partly based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CCR-9985441. Effort also sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Rome Labo-ratory, Air Force Materiel Command, USAF under agreement numbers F30602-99-C-0174 and F30602-00-2-0615. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation thereon. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily represent-ing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Rome Laboratory or the U.S. Government. Effort also sponsored in part by the U.S. Army Tank Automotive and Armaments Com-mand and Xerox Corporation.

6REFERENCES

[AG97] R. Allen and D. Garlan. A Formal Basis for Architectural Connection. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 213-249, July 1997.

[AM99] M. Abi-Antoun and N. Medvidovic. Enabling the Refine-ment of a Software Architecture into a Design. Proceedings of The Second International Conference on The Unified Model-ing Language (UML’99), Fort Collins, CO, October 1999. [Cag90] M. R. Cagan. The HP SoftBench Environment: An Archi-tecture for a New Generation of Software Tools. Hewlett-Packard Journal, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 36–47, June 1990. [CDF98] C. Cugola, E. Di Nitto, and A. Fuggetta. Exploiting an Event-Based Infrastructure to Develop Complex Distributed Systems. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering, Kyoto, Japan, April 1998.

[CRW01] A. Carzaniga, D. S. Rosenblum, and A. L. Wolf. Design and Evaluation of a Wide-Area Event Notification Service.

ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, vol. 19 no. 3, pp.

332-383, August 2001.

[Cha96] D. Chappell. Understanding ActiveX and OLE.

Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1996.

[Con98] R. Condon. ICL bridges COM, CORBA. Computerworld, March 1998. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2a12997307.html,/home/ online9697.nsf/all/980317icl1DA8A

[DR99] E. Di Nitto and D. S. Rosenblum. Exploiting ADLs to Specify Architectural Styles Induced by Middleware Infra-structures. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering, Los Angeles, May 1999. [FFCM99] D. Flanagan, J. Farley, W. Crawford, and K. Magnus-son. Java Enterprise in a Nutshell. O'Reilly, 1999.

[Gar99] D. Gardner. New ORB Pledges Faster COM-CORBA Integration. Info World Electric, January 1999.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2a12997307.html,/crd_orb_65690.html

[IMA98] International Middleware Association. A Middleware Taxonomy: Middleware in the World of Distributed Comput-ing. Technical Report, 1998.

[Inpr] Inprise Corp. VisiBroker. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2a12997307.html,/visibro-ker/

[ISG97] International Systems Group, Inc. Middleware: The Essential Component for Enterprise Client/Server Applica-tions. February 1997.

[JH93] A. Julienne and B. Holtz. Tooltalk and Open Protocols: Inter-Application Communication. SunSoft Press/Prentice Hall, April 1993.

[KG98] R. Keshav and R. Gamble. Toward a Taxonomy of Inte-gration Strategies. Proceedings of the 3rd International Soft-ware Architecture Workshop, Orlando, FL, November 1998. [KG99] A. Kelkar and R. Gamble. Understanding the Architec-tural Characteristics Behind Middleware Choices. Proceed-ings of the 1st International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration, November 1999.

[KM98] J. Kramer and J. Magee. Analysing Dynamic Change in Software Architectures: A Case Study. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Configurable Distributed Sys-tems, Annapolis, MD, May 1998.

[LV95] D. C. Luckham and J. Vera. An Event-Based Architecture Definition Language. IEEE Transactions on Software Engi-neering, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 717-734, September 1995. [MGR00] N. Medvidovic, R. F. Gamble, and D. S. Rosenblum.

Towards Software Multioperability: Bridging Heterogeneous Software Interoperability Platforms. Proceedings of the 4th International Software Architecture Workshop (ISAW-4), Lim-erick, Ireland, June 2000.

[MHO96] M. J. Maybee, D. H. Heimbigner, and L. J. Osterweil.

Multilanguage Interoperability in Distributed Systems: Expe-rience Report. Proceedings of the 18th International Confer-ence on Software Engineering, Berlin, March 1996. [MMM02] N. Medvidovic, N. R. Mehta, and M. Mikic-Rakic. A Family of Software Architecture Implementation Frame-works. To appear in Proceedings of the 2002 Working IEEE/ IFIP Conference on Software Architectures, Montreal, Can-ada, August 2002.

[MMP99] N. R. Mehta, N. Medvidovic, and S. Phadke. Towards a Taxonomy of Software Connectors. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2000), Limerick, Ireland, June 2000.

[MOT97] N. Medvidovic, P. Oreizy, and R. N. Taylor. Reuse of Off-the-Shelf Components in C2-Style Architectures. Pro-ceedings of the 1997 Symposium on Software Reusability and Proceedings of the 1997 International Conference on Soft-ware Engineering, Boston, MA, May 1997.

[MQR95] M. Moriconi, X. Qian, and R. A. Riemenschneider. Cor-rect Architecture Refinement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 356-372, April 1995. [MRRR02] N. Medvidovic, D. S. Rosenblum, D. F. Redmiles, and J. E. Robbins. Modeling Software Architectures in the Uni-fied Modeling Language. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 11, no. 1, January 2002. [MRT99] N. Medvidovic, D.S. Rosenblum and R.N. Taylor. A Language and Environment for Architecture-Based Software Development and Evolution. Proceedings of the 21st Interna-tional Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 44–53, Los Angeles, CA, May 1999.

[MT97] N. Medvidovic and R. N. Taylor. Exploiting Architectural Style to Develop a Family of Applications. IEE Proceedings Software Engineering, vol. 144, no. 5-6, pp. 237-248, Octo-ber-December 1997. [MT00] N. Medvidovic and R.N. Taylor. A Classification and Comparison Framework for Software Architecture Descrip-tion Languages. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 26, no. 1, January 2000.

[OMT98] P. Oreizy, N. Medvidovic, and R. N. Taylor. Architec-ture-Based Runtime Software Evolution. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’98), Kyoto, Japan, April 1998.

[OMTR98] P. Oreizy, N. Medvidovic, R. Taylor, and D. Rosen-blum. Software Architecture and Component Technologies: Bridging the Gap. OMG-DARPA-MCC Workshop on Compo-sitional Software Architectures. Monterey, CA, January 1998. [OHE96] R. Orfali, D. Harkey, and J. Edwards. The Essential Dis-tributed Objects Survival Guide. John Wiley & Sons, 1996. [P99] President's Information Technology Advisory Committee.

Information Technology Research: Investing in Our Future.

National Coordination Office for Computing, Information, and Communication, February 1999.

[PW92] D. E. Perry and A. L. Wolf. Foundations for the Study of Software Architectures. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineer-ing Notes, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 40-52, October 1992.

[Pur94] J. Purtilo. The Polylith Software Bus. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, vol. 16, no. 1, pp.

151-174, January 1994.

[Rei90] S. Reiss. Connecting Tools Using Message Passing in the Field Environment. IEEE Software, vol. 7, no. 4, July 1990. [Sch93] A. Schill, editor. DCE — The OSF Distributed Computing Environment. Proceedings of the International DCE Work-shop, Karlsruhe, Germany, Springer Verlag, October 1993. [SDK+95] M. Shaw, R. DeLine, D. V. Klein, T. L. Ross, D. M.

Young, and G. Zelesnik. Abstractions for Software Architec-ture and Tools to Support Them. IEEE Transactions on Soft-ware Engineering, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 314-335, April 1995. [Ses97] R. Sessions. COM and DCOM: Microsoft’s Vision for Dis-tributed Objects. John Wiley & Sons, 1997.

[SG96] M. Shaw and D. Garlan. Software Architecture: Perspec-tives on an Emerging Discipline. Prentice Hall, April 1996. [Sta98] The Standish Group. The CHAOS Report, 1998.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2a12997307.html,/chaos.html; http:// https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2a12997307.html,/_compass/chao98.html

[Sun] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Remote Method Invocation. http:// https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2a12997307.html,:80/products/jdk/rmi/index.html

[TMA+96] R. N. Taylor, N. Medvidovic, et al. A Component- and Message-Based Architectural Style for GUI Software. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 390-406, June 1996.

[Ver99] C. Verbowski. Integrating Java and COM, Microsoft Cor-poration, January 1999.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2a12997307.html,/java/resource/java_com.htm [Xerox] Xerox PARC. ILU - Inter-Language Unification. ftp:// https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2a12997307.html,/pub/ilu/ilu.html

[YBB99] D. Yakimovich, J. M. Bieman, and V. R. Basili. Software Architecture Classification for Estimating the Cost of COTS Integration. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering, Los Angeles, May 1999.

软件架构设计文档

软件架构设计文档 Document serial number【UU89WT-UU98YT-UU8CB-UUUT-UUT108】

密级：内部公开文档编号：1002 版本号：测测（基于安卓平台的测评软件）软件架构设计文档计算机与通信工程学院天师团开发团队

修订历史记录目录

1．文档介绍文档目的本文档是对于测测软件系统进行详细设计和编码的重要依据。对该软件的整个系统的结构关系进行了详细描述，阐述了系统的总体框架，包括物理、逻辑结构，说明了体系结构所采取的设计策略和所有技术，并对相关内容做出了统一的规定。为今后的设计、编码、测试都提供了可以参考的模版并且提高效率，使整个开发过程做到资源利用最大化，减少由于需求变更而修改的时间，大大的降低了成本，节约了时间，也使得客户更加的满意。文档范围本文档包含以下几个部分： 1、架构设计思想 2、架构体系描述 3、系统模块化分 4、系统模块描述 5、模块接口设计读者对象本文档主要读者包括：

1、本系统的设计人员：包括模块设计人员（理解用户需求，在设计时把握用户需求）。 2、本系统的系统开发人员：编码人员（了解用户需求，为编码提供模版）。 3、本系统的测试人员（了解用户需求，为测试提供参考）。 4、客户（检查是否满足要求）。参考文献《软件工程讲义》《测测需求规格说明书》 2．架构设计思想为了降低系统耦合度，增加系统内聚性，在需求发生更改时能在较短的时间内对系统做出修改，并重新投入使用，我们决定以分层体系架构风格作为整个系统的体系风格，严格按照一定的规则来进行接口设计，并以之为根据进行详细设计。分为数据层、业务逻辑层、表示层。 3．架构体系描述整个系统顶层架构采用分层的风格，整个系统的体系结构非常清晰，使得后期易于详细设计、编码、维护以及适应需求变更。通过分层，定义出层与层之间的接口，使得在更加规范的同时拥有更为多台花的接口描述，使得层与层之间的耦合度降低，增强了模块的服用型和可

软件架构设计说明书

架构设计说明书版本1.0.0

1.引言 [对于由多个进程构成的复杂系统，系统设计阶段可以分为：架构设计（构架设计）、组件高层设计、组件详细设计。对于由单个进程构成的简单系统，系统设计阶段可以分为：系统概要设计、系统详细设计。本文档适用于由多个进程构成的复杂系统的构架设计。] [架构设计说明书是软件产品设计中最高层次的文档，它描述了系统最高层次上的逻辑结构、物理结构以及各种指南，相关组件（粒度最粗的子系统）的内部设计由组件高层设计提供。] [系统：指待开发产品的软件与硬件整体，其软件部分由各个子系统嵌套组成，子系统之间具有明确的接口；组件：指粒度最粗的子系统；模块：指组成组件的各层子系统，模块由下一层模块或函数组成；] [此文档的目的是： 1）描述产品的逻辑结构，定义系统各组件（子系统）之间的接口以及每个组件（子系统）应该实现的功能； 2）定义系统的各个进程以及进程之间的通信方式； 3）描述系统部署，说明用来部署并运行该系统的一种或多种物理网络（硬件）配置。对于每种配置，应该指出执行该系统的物理节点（计算机、网络设备）配置情况、节点之间的连接方式、采用何种通信协议、网络带宽。另外还要包括各进程到物理节点的映射； 4）系统的整体性能、安全性、可用性、可扩展性、异常与错误处理等非功能特性设计； 5）定义该产品的各个设计人员应该遵循的设计原则以及设计指南，各个编程人员应该遵循的编码规范。 ] [建议架构设计工程师与组件设计工程师共同完成此文档。] [架构设计说明书的引言应提供整个文档的概述。它应包括此文档的目的、范围、定义、首字母缩写词、缩略语、参考资料和概述。] 1.1目的 [简要描述体系结构文档的目的。]

软件架构设计说明书

软件架构设计说明书 The final edition was revised on December 14th, 2020.

架构设计说明书版本1.0.0

软件架构文档(样例)

4In1 System 软件架构文档版本<1.1>

修订文档历史记录

目录 1. 简介 (4) 1.1 目的 (4) 1.2 范围 (4) 1.3 定义、首字母缩写词和缩略语 (4) 1.4 参考资料 (4) 2. 架构表示方式 (4) 3. 架构目标和约束 (4) 4. 用例视图 (4) 4.1 主要用例 (5) 4.1.1 申请注册 (5) 4.1.2 用户注册审核 (5) 4.1.3 用户角色管理 (5) 4.1.4 角色权限管理 (6) 4.1.5 车型信息管理 (6) 4.1.6 配件信息管理 (6) 5. 逻辑视图 (6) 5.1 概述 (6) 5.2 Application层 (7) 5.3 Business Service层 (7) 5.3.1 Service包 (7) 5.3.2 Model包 (8) 5.4 Middleware层 (8) 6. 部署视图 (8) 6.1 User Client (9) 6.2 Server (9) 6.3 DB Server (9) 7. 数据视图 (9) 8. 大小和性能 (10) 9. 质量 (10)

软件架构文档 1.简介 1.1目的本文档将从架构方面对系统进行综合概述，其中会使用多种不同的架构视图来描述系统的各个方面。它用于记录并表述已对系统的架构方面作出的重要决策。 1.2范围本文档用于4In1小组正在开发中的4In1系统。4n1系统是为ABC汽车4S店设计的业务管理系统，将提供汽车的整车销售、配件销售、售后服务以及信息反馈等功能。 1.3定义、首字母缩写词和缩略语见4In1系统术语表 1.4参考资料 1. 4In1系统术语表，1.0版，4In1小组 2. 4In1系统前景文档，1.1版，4In1小组 3. 4In1系统软件需求规约，1.0版，4In1小组 4. 4In1系统软件开发计划，1.1版，4In1小组 5. 4In1系统初始迭代计划，1.1版，4In1小组 6. 4In1系统细化迭代计划，1.0版，4In1小组 7. 4In1系统风险列表，1.0版，4In1小组 8. RUP的软件架构文档模板 2.架构表示方式本文档将通过以下一系列视图来表示4In1系统的软件架构：用例视图、逻辑视图、部署视图。本文档不包括进程视图和实施视图。这些视图都是通过PowerDesigner工具建立的UML模型。 3.架构目标和约束 1.系统在开发过程中有如下设计约束：开发语言为Java，采用关系型数据库存放数据，采用基于UML的面向对象分析与设计方法进行开发，采用B/S架构。 2.系统应支持100人以上同时访问服务器并支持500人以上同时访问数据库，服务器的响应时间不应该超过5秒。 3.所有用户在保证网络连接的情况下可同时通过局域网和互联网访问系统。 4.系统必须保证数据的安全访问，用户需要通过用户名和密码进行身份认证，同时对数据的访问要进行授权认证。 4.用例视图

系统的架构设计文档

xxx系统架构设计说明书 2013-12-12 v0.1

修订历史记录

目录 1.简介4 1.1目的4 1.2范围4 1.3定义、首字母缩写词和缩略语4 1.4参考资料4 1.5概述错误！未定义书签。 2.整体说明4 2.1简介4 2.2构架表示方式4 2.3构架目标和约束4 3.用例说明5 3.1核心用例6 3.2用例实现7 4.逻辑视图8 4.1逻辑视图8 4.2分层8 4.2.1应用层8 4.2.2业务层8 4.2.3中间层9 4.2.4系统层9 4.3架构模式9 4.4设计机制错误！未定义书签。 4.5公用元素及服务9 5.进程视图9 6.部署视图9 7.数据视图9 8.大小和性能9 9.质量9 10.其它说明9

系统架构设计文档 1.简介系统构架文档的简介应提供整个系统构架文档的概述。它应包括此系统构架文档的目的、范围、定义、首字母缩写词、缩略语、参考资料和概述 1.1目的本文档将从构架方面对系统进行综合概述，其中会使用多种不同的构架视图来描述系统的各个方面。它用于记录并表述已对系统的构架方面做出的重要决策,以便于开发人员高效的开发和快速修改和管理。 1.2范围本文档用于oto项目组目前正在开发的android app电器管家2.0和已经发布的1.0的开发或修改 1.3定义、首字母缩写词和缩略语参考系統需求文档电器管家APP2.020140214 1.4参考资料 1、系統需求文档电器管家APP2.020140214 2、品牌品类及映射建议App数据结构及数据样例 2.整体说明 2.1简介在此简单介绍系统架构的整体情况，包括用例视图、逻辑视图、进程视图、实施视图的简单介绍。另外，简要介绍各种视图的作用和针对的用户 2.2构架表示方式本文档将通过以下一系列视图来表示4In1系统的软件架构：用例视图、逻辑视图、部署视图。本文档不包括进程视图和实施视图。这些视图都是通过PowerDesigner工具建立的UML模型。 2.3构架目标和约束系统架构在设计过程中有以下设计约束： 1、安全性：通讯协议采用加密的方式、存放app端数据要进行混淆器加密、电话号码和logo不能通过反编译批量拿走。

软件架构设计说明书完整版

软件架构设计说明书 HEN system office room 【HEN16H-HENS2AHENS8Q8-HENH1688】

架构设计说明书版本1.0.0

软件架构设计模板讲解

架构设计说明书产品发布标识 [填写说明：模板中用方括号括起来并以蓝色斜体显示的文本，用于向作者提供指导，在文档编辑完成后应该将其删除。文档正文应使用常规、黑色、五号字体即系统设置的“正文”样式文档页眉处的”xxxx系统”和“版本号”仅为示例，请注意更新封页与页眉符合实际情况。此处的版本号指的是产品版本号封页简要表中的产品名，如无可以不填写。当某一章/节没有内容时，必须注明N/A，同时标注理由。例如：本章/节内容无需考虑。特别说明：当某章/节内容参见其它文档时，不能注明N/A，而应该写明参见某文档的具体章节。华为科技（深圳）有限公司版权所有内部资料注意保密

修订记录：

派发清单：＊动作类型：批准、审核、通知、归档、参与会议，其它（请说明）

目录 1 简介 (6) 1.1 目的 (6) 1.2 文档范围 (6) 1.3 预期的读者和阅读建议 (6) 1.4 参考文档 (8) 1.4.1 包含文档 (8) 1.4.2 相关文档 (8) 1.5 缩略语和术语 (8) 2 总体设计思路 (9) 2.1 设计方法 (9) 2.2 设计可选方案 (9) 3 系统逻辑结构 (10) 3.1 总体结构 (10) 3.2 子系统定义 (10) 3.2.1 子系统一 (11) 3.2.2 子系统二 (11) 3.3 接口设计 (11) 3.3.1 产品外部接口 (11) 3.3.2 子系统间接口 (11) 3.4 主要数据模型 (11) 4 系统物理结构 (12) 4.1 总体结构 (12) 4.2 组件定义 (12) 4.2.1 组件一 (12) 4.3 组件接口设计 (12) 4.4组件与子系统对应关系 (12) 5 系统部署 (13) 5.1 网络结构图 (13) 5.2 部署模式 (13) 6 关键技术及公用机制 (13) 6.1 关键技术设计 (13) 6.2 公用机制说明 (13) 7 系统重用设计 (13) 7.1 第三方硬件设备说明 (15)

软件架构案例分析和最佳实践培训

软件架构案例分析和最佳实践培训课程简介：软件架构是软件业的一个重要研究领域,正受到越来越多的关注,其地位也日益明显地体现出来.而架构设计师——也就成为软件系统的最高设计者。此课程就是为有志成为卓越架构师的人准备的培训课程。作为架构设计师，需要具备统观全局、分而治之的能力，从子系统的划分到组件的定义，从系统设计能力到沟通、协调,表达能力. 我们系统的组织课程，并由15年经验丰富的讲师传授，为您成长为架构设计师打下坚实的基础。本课程通过介绍软件架构视图和软件文档，软件架构设计过程，软件架构应用与常用的架构模式/策略/原则等诸多架构实际问题，透视软件架构是如何设计和实现的? 并且介绍应该如何应用系统架构设计为后期的详细设计和应用开发提供指导。针对大多数企业目前是维护遗留系统, 该课程介绍了软件架构的监控,架构的坏症状和重构方法,因为架构设计的前期不能考虑到所有的问题，设计包容一切的完美架构. 还针对软件架构常见设计技术专题等问题进行了分析并提出了解决方案，并结合众多大型软件项目架构案例进行更深入的剖析！【主办单位】中国电子标准协会【协办单位】深圳市威硕企业管理咨询有限公司课题内容第一单元：软件架构文档和架构视图-如何有效描述架构蓝图一、软件架构的视图（1）软件架构视图的意义, 软件架构师的多维思考（2）逻辑视图、开发视图、部署视图、运行视图、场景视图,数据视图,实现视图（3）如何和怎样绘制软件架构视图（4）UML建模工具在架构视图的应用（5）典型案例分析：结合多个电信,金融行业项目案例，分析真实项目软件架构视图二、软件架构的文档编写（1）软件架构文档的意义（2）软件架构模板(根据实际项目情况选择合适内容) （3）软件架构文档的结构(避免出现不必要的重复和缺少关键信息) （4）软件架构文档必须包含的内容(通过多个项目,分析不同系统包含系统内容不同) （5）文档的后期管理(使文档保持更新) （6）软件架构文档的评审（7）典型案例分析：结合多个电信项目案例，进行分析和评审软件架构文档第二单元：软件架构设计关注点(哪些因素驱动架构设计,是架构开始设计之前必须知道的?)和架构最佳策略

软件架构案例分析

票务系统架构案例分析?10.1 ATAM方法表述

?10.2 商业动机的表述 ?10.3 构架的表述 ?10.4 质量属性效用树 ?10.5 质量场景的构架分析 ?10.6 对系统构架的再分析 ?10.7 评审结论 10.1 ATAM方法表述 (1)概述 ATAM（Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method）： SEI提出的一种软件构架评估方法。ATAM评估方法的主要目的： 1)提炼出软件质量属性需求的精确描述；

2)提炼出构架设计决策的精确描述； 3)评估这些构架设计决策，并判定其是否令人满意的实现了这些质量需求。 ATAM评估方法：并非把每个可以量化的质量属性都进行详尽的分析，而是使众多的风险承担者（包括经理、开发人员、测试人员、用户、客户等等）都参与进来，由此而达到上述目标的。 ATAM是一种挖掘潜在风险，降低或者缓和现有风险的软件构架评估方法。因此，以下三点是评估中要特别注重的：风险、敏感点和权衡点。 (2)构架涉众 ·普通用户 ·用户管理员

·票务管理员 ·开发人员 ·测试人员 (3)评估步骤 ATAM主要分以下几个步骤： 1)ATAM描述； 2)商业动机表述； 3)软件构架表述；4) 确定构架方式； 5)生成效用树； 6)分析构架方式； 7)确定场景及其优先级； 8)进一步分析构架方式； 9)得出结论。

10.2 商业动机的描述项目经理从开发组织和客户角度，来表述票务系统的商业目标，综合如下： ?从开发组织角度：开发一个模块性强、实时高效、界面良好、与外部其他系统兼容良好的系统，这使得开发组织能够把整个产品或某个模块卖给其他客户，同时由于良好的界面和业务处理效率而受市场欢迎。 ?从客户角度：系统容易操作，可维护性好、系统稳定、可以及时准确的处理用户的在线订票或查询业务。根据上述目标，质量属性可以划分为两类：高优先级质量属性： 1)性能 2)安全性 3)易用性

软件系统架构图-参考案例

各种软件开发系统架构图案例介绍

第一章【荐】共享平台架构图与详细说明 1.1.【荐】共享平台逻辑架构设计 (逻辑指的是业务逻辑) 注:逻辑架构图--主要突出子系统/模块间的业务关系, 这里的逻辑指的是业务逻辑如上图所示为本次共享资源平台逻辑架构图，上图整体展现说明包括以下几个方面： 1 应用系统建设本次项目的一项重点就是实现原有应用系统的全面升级以及新的应用系统的开发，从而建立行业的全面的应用系统架构群。整体应用系统通过SOA面向服务管理架构模式实现应用组件的有效整合，完成应用系统的统一化管理与维护。 2 应用资源采集整体应用系统资源统一分为两类，具体包括结构化资源和非机构化资源。本次项目就要实现对这两类资源的有效采集和管理。对于非结构化资源，我们将通过相应的资源采集工具完成数据的统一管理与

维护。对于结构化资源，我们将通过全面的接口管理体系进行相应资源采集模板的搭建，采集后的数据经过有效的资源审核和分析处理后进入到数据交换平台进行有效管理。 3 数据分析与展现采集完成的数据将通过有效的资源分析管理机制实现资源的有效管理与展现，具体包括了对资源的查询、分析、统计、汇总、报表、预测、决策等功能模块的搭建。 4 数据的应用最终数据将通过内外网门户对外进行发布，相关人员包括局内各个部门人员、区各委办局、用人单位以及广大公众将可以通过不同的权限登录不同门户进行相关资源的查询，从而有效提升了我局整体应用服务质量。综上，我们对本次项目整体逻辑架构进行了有效的构建，下面我们将从技术角度对相关架构进行描述。

1.2.【荐】技术架构设计注:技术架构图 --主要突出子系统/模块自身使用的技术和模块接口关联方式如上图对本次项目整体技术架构进行了设计，从上图我们可以看出，本次项目整体建设内容应当包含了相关体系架构的搭建、应用功能完善可开发、应用资源全面共享与管理。下面我们将分别进行说明。 1.3.【荐】系统整体架构设计(也称为系统总体架构) 上述两节，我们对共享平台整体逻辑架构以及项目搭建整体技术架构进行了分别的设计说明，通过上述设计，我们对整体项目的架构图进行了归纳如下：

软件架构设计说明书完整版

软件架构设计说明书

Oxx＞架构设计说明书版本1. 0. 0

1.引言［对于由多个进程构成的复杂系统，系统设计阶段可以分为：架构设计（构架设汁）、组件高层设计、组件详细设计。对于由单个进程构成的简单系统，系统设计阶段可以分为：系统概要设计、系统详细设计。本文档适用于由多个进程构成的复杂系统的构架设计。］［架构设计说明书是软件产品设计中最高层次的文档，它描述了系统最高层次上的逻辑结构、物理结构以及各种指南，相关组件（粒度最粗的子系统）的内部设计由组件髙层设计提供。］［系统：指待开发产品的软件与硬件整体，其软件部分由体个子系统嵌套组成，子系统之间具有明确的接口；组件：指粒度最粗的子系统：模块：指组成组件的各层子系统，模块由下一层模块或函数组成：］［此文档的目的是： 1）描述产品的逻辑结构，定义系统各组件（子系统）之间的接口以及每个组件（子系统）应该实现的功能； 2）定义系统的各个进程以及进程之间的通信方式： 3）描述系统部署，说明用来部署并运行该系统的一种或多种物理网络（硬件）配宜。对于每种配宜，应该指岀执行该系统的物理节点（计算机、网络设备）配置情况、节点之间的连接方式、采用何种通信协议、网络带宽。另外还要包括各进程到物理节点的映射； 4）系统的整体性能、安全性、可用性、可扩展性、异常与错误处理等非功能特性设计： 5）左义该产品的各个设计人员应该遵循的设计原则以及设计指南，各个编程人员应该遵循的编码规范。 J ［建议架构设计工程师与组件设计工程师共同完成此文档。］［架构设汁说明书的引言应提供整个文档的概述。它应包括此文档的目的、范用、左义、首字母缩写词、缩略语、参考资料和概述。］

软件架构设计说明书

1 软件架构设计说明书【图书杂志采购和借阅系统】 2010-5-8 华南理工大学软件学院 07软件（2）班小组指导老师：王振宇小组成员：陈军、傅桔选胡立、沈书毅编写：沈书毅、胡立

2 目录一、简介 .................................................................................................................. 4 1. 编写目的 ........................................................................................................... 4 2. 文档范围 ........................................................................................................... 4 3. 定义 .................................................................................................................. 4 4. 参考资料 ........................................................................................................... 5 二、架构表示方式.................................................................................................... 5 三、架构设计目标与约束......................................................................................... 5 1. 关键功能需求.................................................................................................... 6 2. 关键质量需求.................................................................................................... 8 3. 开发策略 ........................................................................................................... 8 四、用例视图 ........................................................................................................... 9 1. 概述 .................................................................................................................. 9 2. 关键用例 ........................................................................................................... 9 五、逻辑视图 ......................................................................................................... 16 1. 概述 (16) 2. 系统层次模型 ..................................................................................................... 16 3. 主要的设计包和子系统 ...................................................................................... 17 六、进程视图 (17) 1. 概述 .................................................................................................................... 17 2. 角色进程视图 ..................................................................................................... 17 七、实施视图 (21)

系统架构设计说明书(样例)

内部使用注意保密办公信息系统V2.0项目系统架构设计说明书 2012年1月

目录第1章架构设计概述 (1) 1.1定义、缩写词和缩略语 (1) 1.2主要设计目标和设计原则 (2) 1.2.1档案管理子系统的主要目标 (2) 1.2.2人力资源管理子系统的主要目标 (2) 1.2.3资产管理子系统的主要目标 (3) 1.2.4采购管理子系统的主要目标 (3) 1.2.5网上报销模块的主要目标 (3) 1.3参考资料 (4) 第2章业务场景 (4) 2.1主要需求和约束 (4) 2.1.1档案管理子系统的主要需求 (4) 2.1.2人力资源管理子系统的主要需求 (5) 2.1.3资产管理子系统的主要需求 (5) 2.1.4采购管理子系统的主要需求 (5) 2.1.5网上报销子系统的主要需求 (5) 2.2业务功能需求场景 (6) 2.2.1档案管理子系统业务流程图 (6) 2.2.2人力资源管理子系统业务流程图 (6) 2.2.3资产管理子系统业务流程图 (6) 2.2.4采购管理子系统业务流程图 (7) 2.2.5网上报销模块业务流程图 (7) 2.3非功能性需求场景 (8) 2.3.1系统整体架构 (8) 2.3.2系统性能 (8) 2.3.3易用性 (8) 2.3.4安全性 (8) 2.3.5可用性 (9)

2.3.6开放性和可扩展性 (9) 2.3.7可管理性、易于维护性、容错性、兼容性 (9) 第3章逻辑架构 (10) 3.1职责划分与职责确定 (10) 3.1.1从信息集成方式层面划分 (10) 3.1.2从业务层面上划分 (11) 3.2接口设计与协作机制 (12) 3.2.1用户账号同步接口 (12) 3.2.2文件处理接口 (13) 3.2.3招聘接口 (14) 3.2.4财务接口 (15) 3.2.5档案接口 (16) 3.2.6其它接口 (16) 第4章数据设计 (16) 4.1关键数据流定义 (16) 4.1.1招聘数据流 (17) 4.1.2员工异动数据流 (17) 4.1.3OA文件归档数据流 (18) 4.1.4网上报销数据流 (18) 4.1.5资产与财务台账数据流 (19) 4.1.6项目管理数据流 (19) 4.1.7采购管理数据流 (20) 4.1.8合同管理数据流 (21) 4.2关键数据的转换关系 (22) 4.3持久化存储方案 (22) 4.4数据同步与复制策略 (23) 第5章物理架构 (24) 5.1物理设施及软件映射 (24) 5.2物理部署及拓扑结构 (26)

软件架构设计

项目名称软件架构设计文档版本

1.简介3 1.1目的3 1.2范围3 1.3定义、首字母缩写词和缩略语3 1.4参考资料3 1.5概述3 2.整体说明3 2.1简介3 2.2构架表示方式3 2.3构架目标和约束4 3.用例视图4 3.1核心用例4 3.2用例实现4 4.逻辑视图4 4.1逻辑视图4 4.2分层4 4.2.1应用层4 4.2.2业务层4 4.2.3中间层4 4.2.4系统层4 4.3架构模式5 4.4设计机制5 4.5公用元素及服务5 5.进程视图5 6.部署视图5 7.实施视图5 7.1概述5 7.2层5 7.3部署5

8.数据视图5 9.大小和性能5 10.质量5 11.其它说明6 12.附录A 指南6 13.附录B 规范6 14.附录C 模版6 15.附录D 示例6 软件架构设计文档 1.简介软件构架文档的简介应提供整个软件构架文档的概述。它应包括此软件构架文档的目的、范围、定义、首字母缩写词、缩略语、参考资料和概述 1.1目的本文档将从构架方面对系统进行综合概述，其中会使用多种不同的构架视图来描述系统的各个方面。它用于记录并表述已对系统的构架方面作出的重要决策本节确定此软件构架文档在整个项目文档中的作用或目的，并对此文档的结构进行简要说明。应确定此文档的特定读者，并指出他们应该如何使用此文档 1.2范围简要说明此软件构架文档适用的范围和影响的范围 1.3定义、首字母缩写词和缩略语本小节应提供正确理解此软件构架文档所需的全部术语的定义、首字母缩写词和缩略语。这些信息可以通过引用项目词汇表来提供 1.4参考资料本小节应完整地列出此软件构架文档中其他部分所引用的所有文档。每个文档应标有标题、报告号（如果适用）、日期和出版单位。列出可从中获取这些参考资料的来源。这些信息可以通过引用附录或其他文档来提供 1.5概述本小节应说明此软件构架文档中其他部分所包含的内容，并解释此软件构架文档的组织方式 2.整体说明 2.1简介在此简单介绍软件架构的整体情况，包括用例视图、逻辑视图、进程视图、实施视图和部署视图的简单介绍。另外，简要介绍各种视图的作用和针对的用户 2.2构架表示方式本节说明当前系统所使用的软件构架及其表示方式。还会从用例视图、逻辑视图、进程视图、部署视图和

几种常用软件架构设计指南

几种常用软件架构设计指南软件架构（software architecture）是一系列相关的抽象模式，用于指导大型软件系统各个方面的设计。软件架构是一个系统的草图。软件架构描述的对象是直接构成系统的抽象组件。各个组件之间的连接则明确和相对细致地描述组件之间的通讯。在实现阶段，这些抽象组件被细化为实际的组件，比如具体某个类或者对象。在面向对象领域中，组件之间的连接通常用接口来实现。软件体系结构的定义虽然软件体系结构已经在软件工程领域中有着广泛的应用，但迄今为止还没有一个被大家所公认的定义。许多专家学者从不同角度和不同侧面对软件体系结构进行了刻画，较为典型的定义有： Dewayne Perry和A1ex Wo1f曾这样定义：软件体系结构是具有一定形式的结构化元素，即构件的集合，包括处理构件、数据构件和连接构件。处理构件负责对数据进行加工，数据构件是被加工的信息，连接构件把体系结构的不同部分组组合连接起来。这一定义注重区分处理构件、数据构件和连接构件，这一方法在其他的定义和方法中基本上得到保持。 Mary Shaw和David Garlan认为软件体系结构是软件设计过程中的一个层次，这一层次超越计算过程中的算法设计和数据结构设计。体系结构问题包括总体组织和全局控制、通讯协议、同步、数据存取，给设计元素分配特定功能，设计元素的组织，规模和性能，在各设计方案间进行选择等。软件体系结构处理算法与数据结构之上关于整体系统结构设计和描述方面的一些问题，如全局组织和全局控制结构、关于通讯、同步与数据存取的协议，设计构件功能定义，物理分布与合成，设计方案的选择、评估与实现等 Kruchten指出，软件体系结构有四个角度，它们从不同方面对系统进行描述：概念角度描述系统的主要构件及它们之间的关系；模块角度包含功能分解与层次结构；运行角度描述了一个系统的动态结构；代码角度描述了各种代码和库函数在开发环境中的组织。 Hayes Roth则认为软件体系结构是一个抽象的系统规范，主要包括用其行为来描述的功能构件和构件之间的相互连接、接口和关系。 David Garlan和Dewne Perry于1995年在IEEE软件工程学报上又采用如下

系统架构设计说明书

设备及巡检系统架构设计说明书版本号：V0.1 2015年 11月

1.目的本说明书的编写目的是描述系统的架构设计方案，包括系统的软件总体架构设计及使用的框架说明，以及基于该架构的开发流程，并作为指导开发人员、测试人员进行系统开发及测试的依据。 2.系统架构设计整个软件架构方案采用分层、分布式的部署结构，明确地分离了表现层和业务逻辑，能够保证应用服务逻辑的一致性和稳定性、结构的开放性、功能的可扩展性和可维护性、开发的可并行性，同时采用一些开源的框架，兼顾了经济性。框架是一种特殊的软件，它为软件开发带来了高度的重用性，是无数软件开发人员的多年项目开发经验的总结。在一个优秀的框架上开发应用，而不是从零开始，可以大量缩短项目的开发周期、降低开发风险、增强应用系统的稳定性。

用户层平板客户端WEB浏览器（IE）公共模块表示层View 设备模块业务层Controller WEB应用服务器巡检模块数据访问层 Model OCI OCI 数据库ORACLE 操作系统LINUX 系统总体架构图系统总体架构如上图所示，按功能可以分为公共管理、设备管理、巡检管理、机房出入等模块；系统根据功能特点与业务需求采用基于web的B/S架构模式，项目基于PHP代码实现，运用CI开源框架，可以运行于 Linux 和 Windows 平台；

DAO iBatis Model 3. WEB 系统架构设计用户层 Web 浏览器（IE 、Google ） Web 服务器 Nginx Se r v e r 表示层 html Json View DTO DTO 业务 PHP Controller 层 DTO DTO 数据访问层 OCI OCI 数据库 Oracle 操作系统 RedHatLinux ORM

系统架构设计师-案例分析知识点整理

系统规划：包括系统项目的提出预可行性分析；系统方案的制定、评价和改进；新旧系统的分析和比较；现有软件、硬件和数据资源的有效利用；软件架构设计：XML技术；基于架构的软件开发过程；软件的质量属性；架构（模型）风格；特定领域软件架构；基于架构的软件开发方法；架构评估；软件产品线；系统演化设计模式：设计模式概念；设计模式的组成；模式和软件架构；设计模式分类；设计模式实现；系统设计：处理流程设计；人机界面设计；文件涉及；存储设计；数据库设计；网络应用系统的设计；系统运行环境的集成与设计；中间件；应用服务器；性能设计与性能评估；系统转换设计划；软件系统建模：系统需求、建模的作用以及意义；定义问题（目标、功能、性能）与归结模型（静态结构模型、动态行为模型、物理模型）；结构化系统建模；数据流图；面向对象系统建模；统一建模语言（UML）；数据库建模；E-R图；逆向工程；分布式系统设计：分布式通行协议的设计；基于对象的分布式系统设计；基于web的分布式系统设计；基于消息和协同的分布式系统设计；异构分布式系统的互操作性设计；嵌入式系统设计：实时系统和嵌入式系统特征；实时任务调度和多任务设计；中断处理和异常处理；嵌入式系统的开发设计系统的可靠性分析与设计：系统故障模型和可靠性模型；系统的可靠性分析与可靠度计算；提高系统可靠性的措施；系统的故障对策和系统的备份与恢复；、系统安全性和保密性设计：系统的访问控制技术；数据的完整性；数据与文件的加密；通信的安全性；系统的安全性设计； 1、概念类系统规划项目计划：包括范围计划、工作范围计划、活动定义、资源需求、资源计划、活动排序、

六大类系统架构图及其简介

各种系统架构图及其简介 1.Spring架构图 Spring是一个开源框架，是为了解决企业应用程序开发复杂性而创建的。框架的主要优势之一就是其分层架构，分层架构允许您选择使用哪一个组件，同时为J2EE应用程序开发提供集成的框架。Spring框架的功能可以用在任何J2EE 服务器中，大多数功能也适用于不受管理的环境。Spring的核心要点是：支持不绑定到特定J2EE服务的可重用业务和数据访问对象。这样的对象可以在不同J2EE环境（Web或EJB）、独立应用程序、测试环境之间重用。组成Spring框架的每个模块（或组件）都可以单独存在，或者与其他一个或多个模块联合实现。每个模块的功能如下：核心容器：核心容器提供Spring框架的基本功能。核心容器的主要组件是BeanFactory，它是工厂模式的实现。BeanFactory使用控制反转（IOC）模式将应用程序的配置和依赖性规范与实际的应用程序代码分开。 Spring上下文：Spring上下文是一个配置文件，向Spring框架提供上下文信息。Spring上下文包括企业服务，例如JNDI、EJB、电子邮件、国际化、校验和调度功能。 Spring AOP：通过配置管理特性，Spring AOP模块直接将面向方面的编程功能集成到了Spring框架中。所以，可以很容易地使Spring框架管理的任何对象支

持AOP。Spring AOP模块为基于Spring的应用程序中的对象提供了事务管理服务。通过使用Spring AOP，不用依赖EJB组件，就可以将声明性事务管理集成到应用程序中。 Spring DAO：JDBC DAO抽象层提供了有意义的异常层次结构，可用该结构来管理异常处理和不同数据库供应商抛出的错误消息。异常层次结构简化了错误处理，并且极大地降低了需要编写的异常代码数量（例如打开和关闭连接）。Spring DAO的面向JDBC的异常遵从通用的DAO异常层次结构。 Spring ORM：Spring框架插入了若干个ORM框架，从而提供了ORM的对象关系工具，其中包括JDO、Hibernate和iBatis SQL Map。所有这些都遵从Spring 的通用事务和DAO异常层次结构。 2.ibatis架构图 ibatis是一个基于Java的持久层框架。iBATIS提供的持久层框架包括SQL Maps和Data Access Objects（DAO），同时还提供一个利用这个框架开发的JPetStore实例。 IBATIS：最大的优点是可以有效的控制sql发送的数目，提高数据层的执行效率！它需要程序员自己去写sql语句，不象hibernate那样是完全面向对象的，自动化的，ibatis是半自动化的，通过表和对象的映射以及手工书写的sql语句，能够实现比hibernate等更高的查询效率。

软考系统架构师案例分析知识点整理

————————————————————————————————作者: ————————————————————————————————日期: ?

系统规划:包括系统项目的提出预可行性分析；系统方案的制定、评价和改进；新旧系统的分析和比较；现有软件、硬件和数据资源的有效利用；软件架构设计:XML技术；基于架构的软件开发过程；软件的质量属性;架构(模型）风格；特定领域软件架构;基于架构的软件开发方法；架构评估;软件产品线;系统演化设计模式：设计模式概念；设计模式的组成；模式和软件架构;设计模式分类;设计模式实现；系统设计：处理流程设计;人机界面设计；文件涉及；存储设计;数据库设计;网络应用系统的设计；系统运行环境的集成与设计；中间件;应用服务器；性能设计与性能评估；系统转换设计划；软件系统建模：系统需求、建模的作用以及意义;定义问题(目标、功能、性能）与归结模型（静态结构模型、动态行为模型、物理模型);结构化系统建模;数据流图；面向对象系统建模;统一建模语言（UＭL)；数据库建模；E-R图；逆向工程；分布式系统设计:分布式通行协议的设计；基于对象的分布式系统设计；基于web的分布式系统设计；基于消息和协同的分布式系统设计;异构分布式系统的互操作性设计; 嵌入式系统设计：实时系统和嵌入式系统特征；实时任务调度和多任务设计；中断处理和异常处理;嵌入式系统的开发设计系统的可靠性分析与设计:系统故障模型和可靠性模型;系统的可靠性分析与可靠度计算；提高系统可靠性的措施；系统的故障对策和系统的备份与恢复; 系统安全性和保密性设计:系统的访问控制技术;数据的完整性；数据与文件的加密；通信的安全性；系统的安全性设计； 1、概念类系统规划项目计划:包括范围计划、工作范围计划、活动定义、资源需求、资源计划、活动排序、费用估算、进度计划、费用计划;项目辅助计划包括质量计划、沟通计划、人力资源计划、风险计划、采购计划。虚拟化技术：计算元件在虚拟的基础上运行；有完全虚拟化,准虚拟化,操作系统层虚拟化