当前位置：文档库 › Modelling Web Service Composition Using Reo Coordination Language

Modelling Web Service Composition Using Reo Coordination Language

Sohail Saifipoor

Member of Young Researchers Club,

Department of Computer Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad branch, Isfahan, Iran saifipoor@iaun.ac.ir

Behrouz Tork Ladani, Naser Nematbakhsh

Department of Computer Engineering, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

{ladani ,nemat}@eng.ui.ac.ir

Abstract Web services are emerging technology for distributed computing and E-business interactions. A Web service represents a unit of business logic that an organization exposes on the World Wide Web. The next idea in Web service technology is the composition of Web services into complex ones and it has received much interest to support business-to-business applications. The current Web service composition approaches have been introduced by business process modelling communities and often lack a theoretical and formal basis. This fundamental drawback sometimes results in difficulties in long running real world Web service composition. In this paper we are going to propose two models for Web service composition based on Reo coordination language. Reo is a channel-based exogenous coordination language which has a formal basis and supports loose coupling, distribution, dynamic reconfiguration and mobility. We first introduce Reo and then propose two models based on Reo. The first model focuses on Web service orchestration and the second model introduces a novel service oriented Reo middleware. We also discuss pros and cons of the proposed models.

Keywords Reo coordination language, Web service composition, formal methods

1 INTRODUCTION

Web services are defined as self-contained, modular units of application logic which provide business functionality to other application via Internet connection [15]. They enable dynamic connection and automation of business process for enterprise application integration and B2B integration. This reflects the need for explicit modelling of long-running interaction and complex dependencies among different Web services to fulfil the business requirements. The Web service composition serves this need and fulfils the complexity of business processes execution. Several organizations and business process modelling communities have proposed different Web service composition models and specifications. The absence of formal semantic in these models is the source of major problems. Some well-know problems related to Web service composition are how to verify the correctness and how to express the composition in a formal and expressive specification [16]. Recently several formal models have emerged which help designers to verify the correctness of Web services and their compositions [17, 12, 13, 19].

In this paper we are going to use Reo coordination language [2] to compose Web services. Reo is a formal channel-based coordination language and presents composition of software components based on notation of channels. Reo enables designers to build complex coordinators, called connectors(circuits) out of simpler ones. The simplest connectors in Reo are a set of channels with well defined behaviors. Each channel has its own precise specification and behaviour. Reo specification can be implemented and executed in a Reo middleware. There are a number of middlewares for executing Reo circuits such as ReoLite [9] and Mocha [4]. Due to its formal basis and visual expressiveness, Reo can be used to define the coordination of Web services.

In this paper we are going to introduce two models for composing Web services using Reo coordination language. The first model is based on a predefined Reo circuit. The coordination patterns are presented by Reo circuit and executed in a central Reo middleware. In this model, referred as Central Orchestration model, we present a central Reo coordination middleware for managing and modelling Web service composition. The proposed structure which is derived from [5] consists of a central Reo middleware and a number of adapters. The central Reo middleware executes a Reo circuit which represents a coordination pattern. We also introduce two types of adapters which handle data

transfers between Web services. We use BPEL4WS coordination patterns to define Reo circuits. We can consider this model as a Web service orchestration framework.

In the second model, referred as Distributed Service Oriented Reo Middleware,we present a novel Reo service oriented middleware. In this middleware, special Web services manage Reo channels and expose valid operations to external users (Web services). In contrast with the first model, Web services are aware of Reo channels and their operations.

The structure of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the impact of formal methods on Web service composition. Section 3 outlines Reo coordination language and its properties. Section 4 makes a discussion on using Reo for Web service composition and compares Reo with other formal and informal specification techniques. In section 5 we propose two models for Web service composition based on Reo and in section 6 we discuss and compare the proposed models and finally we present conclusion in section 7.

2 WEB SERVICE COMPOSITION AND FORMAL METHODS

Web services are computational entities that are autonomous and heterogeneous (e.g. running on different platforms or owned by different organizations). Web services are described using appropriate Web service description languages, published and discovered according to predefined protocols [16]. A Web service has a specific task to perform and may depend on the other Web services, hence being composite.

The composition of two or more Web services generates a new Web service which provides a collaborative behaviour for carrying out a new task. Web service composition can be static or dynamic. In static composition, Web services interact with each other on a pre-defined manner but in dynamic composition Web services discover each other, interact and negotiate on the fly [16]. There are two approaches in static composition. In the first approach, referred as orchestration, Web services collaboration is coordinated by a coordinator which is a Web service. In the second approach, referred as choreography, there is no central coordinator but rather tasks are defined by specifying the interaction that should be undertaken by each participant Web service [14]. There are several orchestration languages such as BPEL4WS, BPML and some for choreography like WSCDL. These languages are usually defined and standardized by business process modelling communities and lack a theoretical basis. This raises a number of challenges such as the need for guaranteeing the correct interaction of independent Web services. Consistency, completeness and deadlock free status are other issues which must be taken into consideration when a real world long-running Web service interaction is used. There are some cases in current standard Web service composition specification languages like BPEL4WS which address the ambiguity, inconsistency and incompleteness [18].

It is for the above reasons that formal methods should be used. Recently a variety of concrete proposals have emerged to formally describe, compose and verify Web services. The majority of these are based on state-action models (e.g. labelled transition systems, timed automata, and Petri nets) or process models (e.g. π-calculus and other calculi) [16]. The formal methods can help to verify whether a Web service matches its requirements and works correctly or not. They also help to find whether two Web services are equal or not [14].

Most of the proposed techniques are used to verify the other informal specifications like BPEL4WS specifications and are not used directly in specification process. On the other hand, there is no Web service composition specification language with a strong formal basis and expressive visual notation to help designers in definition and verification process. The mentioned drawbacks in current Web service composition specification led us to introduce a number of models for Web service composition using Reo coordination language.

3 REO COORDINATION LANGUAGE

Reo is a channel-based coordination language which has a strong formal basis and promotes loose coupling, distribution, mobility, exogenous coordination and dynamic reconfiguration of coordination pattern [5]. Reo enforces a model that defines how designers can build complex coordinators, called connectors out of simpler ones [2]. The simplest connectors in Reo are a set of channels with well defined behaviors supplied by the users. A channel has precisely two channel ends. There are two types of channel ends: sink and source. A sink channel end dispenses data out of its channel and a source channel end accepts data into its channel [2].

The semantic of a Reo connector is defined by the composition of the semantics of its channels and nodes. Users define the semantics of channels and Reo defines the semantics of nodes. Arbab has defined a set of complete channel types in [2], namely Sync, Filter, SyncDrain, LossySync, and FIFO-1. Reo provides a comprehensive visual notation for its channels. Figure 1 shows the visual notation for some primitive Reo channels.

Reo also has a formal semantic, based on coinductive calculus of flow [8] [1] and on constraint automata [3]. It also has a formal operational semantic that defines the rule for computing connectors in a distributed computing environment [6].

Figure 1. Reo primitive channels

Reo provides two types of operations: topological – ones that allow manipulation of connector topology and IO – ones that allow input/output of data. Reo enables components to connect and perform I/O on the connector, namely read, take and write [2]. Topological operations are join and split; because of space limitation we do not explain them here.

Each connector in Reo imposes a special coordination pattern on the entities (e.g., components) that perform I/O operations through that connector without the knowledge of those entities [2]. Some of Reo connectors represent coordination patterns that are usually used in Web service composition specifications, for example Reo Barrier Synchronizer connector which is presented in [2], can define a parallel pattern, and Sequencer connector [2] can be used to model a sequence in a process flow. Figure 2 shows three Reo connectors. These connectors can be trivially extended to handle any number of pairs. As Reo is based on channels, users can define their own connectors out of simple channels to handle any coordination pattern.

Figure 2.Reo Connectors (a) Barrier Synchronizer (b) Sequencer (c) Replicator

In Figure 2.a we have illustrated a barrier synchronization connector. Here, the SyncDrain channel ef ensures that a data item passes from ab to cd only simultaneously with the passing of a data item from gh to ij (and vice versa). If the four channels ab, cd, gh, and ij are all of type Sync, our connector directly synchronizes write/take pairs on the pairs of channels a and d, and g and j [2]. In [2] Arbab has presented several connectors with full description of their mechanisms.

4 WHY WEB SERVICE COMPOSITION USING REO?

As we mentioned in Section 2, some formal methods have been introduced for verification of Web service composition. In contrast with these formal techniques which are used in verifying the composition correctness, Reo satisfies specification and simulation needs besides the verification. In [7] Arbab et al. introduced the specification, simulation and verification of Reo connectors’ behaviour. Also recent work on comparing Reo and Petri nets shows that one can relatively easy transform existing Petri net to Reo circuits, while the opposite proves to be difficult [20]. Petri net and other related models can be viewed as specialized channel-based models that incorporate certain specific primitive coordination constructs [20]. These properties of Reo shows its verification and specification ability in defining the coordination of Web services.

In comparison with current Web service composition languages like BPEL4WS and WSCDL, Reo provides dynamic reconfiguration of the coordination pattern at runtime and a comprehensive visual notation. Dynamic reconfiguration of coordination pattern helps designers to fulfil non-functional requirements at runtime. Furthermore visual notation makes the coordination pattern more understandable. Also Reo channel-based structure enables designers to define their own channels and coordination patterns out of simple channels according to their requirements. This property results in extensibility and scalability of the coordination specification. This property is not supported in current composition languages and they are usually restricted to a subset of process flows and coordination patterns and designing new and complex coordination patterns in these languages is a challenging task.

In this way, the inherently dynamic topology of connectors and Reo formal background and very liberal notation of channels make Reo more general and hence more powerful in definition and verification of coordination specification.

5 MODELLING WEB SERVICE COMOSITION USING REO

In this section we are going to introduce two models for composing Web services using Reo coordination language. The base idea in the first model, which is called Central Orchestration model, is derived from [5]. We have extended the idea and expressed Web service composition processes by Reo circuits. The second model introduces a new service oriented Reo middleware which can be used to compose Web services. In the following subsections we introduce and discuss the models.

5.1 Central Orchestration Model

The Central Orchestration model introduces an orchestration structure for composing Web services using Reo coordination middleware. In this model Reo circuits are used to define a coordination pattern and these circuits are managed by a Reo coordination middleware. Figure 3 shows the structure of the Central Orchestration model.

Figure 3.Central Orchestration Model

This model consists of a central Reo coordination middleware (not distributed) and two types of adapters. The Reo middleware is a structure with circuits and Web service proxy components and is responsible for managing the circuits’ process. Web service proxy components manage the channel end operations and communicate with adapters to send and receive requests through channels. The adapters are responsible for managing external requests and transferring Web service proxy component requests to external Web services. We have used two types of adapters, Provider Adapter and Requester Adapter. Requester Adapter is a Web service which provides operations for external Web services. The operation calls on Requester Adapter are mapped to Web service proxy components and consequently they do write or take operations on their channel ends. Provider Adapter sends the Web service proxy components responses to external Web services.

The main advantage of this model is that, Web services are not aware of the Reo circuits and Web services can be coordinated by a predefined circuit. Due to Reo channel-based structure, the circuits can be extended to manage more complex coordination patterns. Example1) Simple Sync Channel: Figure 4 shows a simple sync channel in this model. As illustrated in Figure 4, the Requester Adapter is a Web service which has a “Save(x)” operation and external users (or Web services) can call it. This call is transferred to Web service proxy component Comp1. Comp1 makes a write operation call on the source end of the channel and as Comp2 is suspended, any write operation by Comp1, lets the data be passed through the channel. At this time Comp2, calls an operation on Provider Adapter and the adapter calls the related operation such as “SaveData(z)” on the external Web service.

Figure 4.A sync channel in Central Orchestration model

Now we try to define the composition process by Reo circuits and map operation calls and their parameters to channels. The steps in this model are as the followings: (1) Defining the coordination process by Reo circuits (2) Defining the interactions between Web service proxy components and Web services.

Because of simplicity, we have chosen BPEL4WS coordination patterns to construct Reo circuits. The basic idea behind this process is to use the concept of each BPEL4WS pattern and define its corresponding Reo connector. Then subsequent receives and invokes in BPEL4WS process are mapped to a simple sync channel or a syncdrain channel. This approach is a modular one in which we can construct a complex coordination pattern out of simpler ones. Figure 5 shows a number of patterns in BPEL4WS and their corresponding Reo circuits. The selected BPEL4WS process patterns are sequence, parallel and invoke-receive flow. The patterns are mapped to Reo circuits and will be used by Reo coordination middleware to orchestrate Web services. Reo is a coordination model and has very little to say about the computational entities and the data in coordination process. Due to this property of Reo, there is no data in circuits of Figure 5. We propose a data passing mechanism based on channels and map the operations and their parameters to channel end operations. By considering the orchestration process as a sequence of operations, we can define a sequencer circuit to handle the process flow. Mapping operations and their messages is illustrated through the following example.

Figure 5.BPEL4WS flow patterns and their corresponding Reo circuits

Example2) BPEL4WS Sequencer Circuit: Assume a composition process in which a request should be sent to two Web services and the data should be saved in those services sequentially. Figure 6 shows the process in BPLE4WS and its corresponding Reo circuit. In this figure, the sequential operation calls are mapped to a Reo sequencer circuit and the parameters are passed through a separate replicator connector. Using a separate channel for transferring parameters is feasible but when multiple parameters with different formats are used, we need to define a comprehensive protocol for transferring parameters on channels.

Figure 6.A simple sequence flow in BPEL4WS and its corresponding Reo circuit

After defining the circuit, now we are going to connect the channel ends to components and make connections between Web service proxy components and Web services. We use the proposed middleware structure to complete this phase. As illustrated in Figure 7, the Requester Adapter is a Web service which provides operations for external Web services and maps requests to components. Components are responsible for managing channel ends and communicating with adapters. They also do channel end operations for receiving and sending data through channels.

This model is scalable enough to handle more Web services and we can extend the circuits to manage more Web services. Besides these advantages, defining components responsibility to manage parameters and operation calls needs a flexible approach which must be taken into consideration.

Figure 7.Sequence circuit and Web service proxy components in Central Orchestration model

5.2 Distributed Service Oriented Reo Middleware

In previous model, the Reo coordination middleware was considered to be central and responsible for managing the Reo circuits. In this section we introduce another model for composing Web services by Reo which is based on a service oriented distributed Reo middleware. Reo middlewares such as ReoLite [9] are based on local components and channels. On the other hand, Mocha [4] as a distributed Reo middleware does not support service oriented structure. A service oriented model helps to coordinate any software components and can be used to compose Web services too.

In this model, channels ends and their operations are managed by Web services and channels are not centralized in a local site. This structure can use the potentials of all available distributed sites’ resources and hence manages the composition efficiently. In this model Web services provide channels and related operations on channel ends and communicate directly through channels to manage the coordination process.

We have two different Web services in this model: (1) Web services which contain single channel ends (Channel End Web service) (2) Web services which contain Reo Mixed nodes (Mixed Node Web service). Figure 8 shows the proposed Web services. The Channel End Web service in Figure 8 provides a simple Reo sync channel and the Mixed Node Web service provides a Reo replicator connector. Each Channel End Web service provides Reo channel operations and exposes a WSDL interface for operations on its channel ends, so the external components can call them and request for operations on channel ends. A Mixed node Web service manages a Reo mixed node. Reo mixed nodes consist of different channel ends. A Mixed Node Web service plays two roles: handling external Web service requests on channel ends and communicating with Web services which hold the other end of channels.

In this middleware, Web services expose their operations through WSDL interfaces and they need to be aware of Reo channel operations. In Figure 9 a Channel End Web service and its WSDL interface is shown.

Figure 8.Two types of Web services in service oriented Reo middleware (a) Channel End Web service (b) Mixed Node Web service

Figure 9.Channel End Web services in distributed service oriented Reo middleware model

This model needs a structure for channel ends and a protocol for Web services to manage the channel ends operations. The main advantage of this model is its independence from requesting components and its ability for supporting reconfiguration at runtime but designing more complicated connectors in this model raises a number of challenges like any distributed model. In this model by providing reconfiguration operations for Reo middleware Web services, the model can be extended to support topological reconfiguration. By dynamic reconfiguration we can change the coordination pattern to fulfil non-functional requirements such as cost and performance at runtime.

6 DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON

In this section we discuss and compare the properties of the proposed models according to some generally accepted Web service composition requirements:

1.Non-functional properties: In the proposed models dynamic reconfiguration

can be considered as a mechanism to fulfill non-functional requirements.

Changing the topology of connectors at runtime in distributed service oriented Reo middleware, helps designers to serve non-functional Quality of Services (QoS) properties, such as performance and cost, but in the first model, due to its central circuit structures, this functionality does not provide remarkable benefits.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/3719100803.html,position correctness: In the first model, as Reo circuits are located in a

central middleware and defined prior to execution, verifying its correctness is possible. In contrast with the first model, the distributed service oriented Reo middleware model consists of a set of channels which are all distributed among Web services, hence checking the correctness of the circuit is a challenging task and requires more consideration.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/3719100803.html,posite scalability: This composition requirement is supported in Reo by its

channel-based structure. In the first model as the Reo circuits are central; they can be extended to handle more services. For example a simple Barrier Synchronizer connector in Reo which represents the parallel coordination pattern can be extended to handle any number of pairs.

4.Tool support for execution and verification: Any composition approach must

be supported by software tools. These software tools usually provide implementation, verification and execution. For the first model, ReoLite [9] can be used as a central middleware to run Reo circuits but there is not any implemented middleware available for the distributed service oriented Reo middleware model. We also can verify the Reo circuits in the first model by proposed tools in [10] and [11] which are based on constraint automata.

5.Process modeling construct support: Reo channels provide a comprehensive

mechanism to design any coordination pattern out of simpler ones. In the first model as the Reo circuits are central, designing any coordination pattern is possible but in the distributed service oriented Reo middleware model, because of its distributed structure, providing complex patterns is a challenging task.

6.Graphical notation: Composition languages are expected to have a visual

notation for expressing the coordination process. The visual notation should be independent from software components and the type of data which is used in the coordination process. It also must be expressive enough to be mapped to an

executable code. Reo visual notation serves these requirements and provides an understandable notation which can be mapped to an executable code.

In Table 1, we have compared the proposed models with respect to the above requirements.

Table https://www.wendangku.net/doc/3719100803.html,paring Web service composition requirements

Central Orchestration

Model

Service Oriented

Distributed Reo Middleware Model

Non-functional Properties √

Dynamic Reconfiguration √

Composition Correctness √

Composition Scalability √

Tool Support (Verification) √

Tool Support (Execution) √

Formal Semantic & Expressiveness √√

Process modeling construct support √√

Graphical Notation √√

7 CONCLUSION

In this paper we proposed two models for composing Web services based on Reo coordination language. Reo as a channel-based coordination language not only provides a formal specification but also has a visual notation and implementation. The formal basis of Reo, guarantees the possibility of checking and verifying the coordination process and its channel-based structure lets designers to define complex coordination patterns. In the first model, referred as Central Orchestration model, we defined Web service composition processes by Reo circuits. The second model was a distributed service oriented Reo middleware which could be used to compose Web services. The main properties of the first model are scalability and its central circuits which represent an orchestration framework; on the other hand, the second model is a service oriented Reo middleware which can fulfill non-functional requirements through reconfiguration operations. In future work, we are going to define more process patterns by Reo circuits, especially complex ones and those which can not be modeled by available coordination specifications.

REFERENCES

1.Arbab F. (2003),’Abstract Behavior Types: A foundation model for components and their composition’.

In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Formal Models for Components and Objects (FMCO 2002), LNCS 2852, 2003, pp.33-70.

2.Arbab F. (2004), ’Reo: A channel-based coordination model for component composition’. Mathematical

Structures in Computer Science, 14(3), 2004, pp.1–38.

3.Arbab F., Baier C., Rutten J.J.M.M. and Sirjani M. (2004), ‘Modeling component connectors in Reo by

constraint automata’. Electronic note in Theoretical Computer Science, vol.97, No.22, July, 2004.pp. 25-46.

4.Arbab F., deBoer F.S., Bonsangue M.M. and Guillen-Scholten J.V. (2002), ‘MoCha: a middleware based

on mobile channels’. In Proceedings of 26th International Computer Software and Application Conference (COMPSAC02) IEEE Computer Society Press, 2002.

5.Arbab F. and Diakov N. (2004), ‘Compositional construction of Web services using Reo’.In

Proceedings International Workshop on Web Services: Modeling, Architecture and Infrastructure (ICEIS 2004), Porto, Portugal, April 13-14, 2004.

6.Arbab F., Everaars C.T.H., De Oliveira Costa D.F., Diakov N.K. (2006),’A distributed computational

model for Reo’. Technical Report, REPORT SEN-E0601, CWI, the Netherlands, February 2006.

7.Arbab F., Mousavi M. R. and Sirjani M. (2004),’Specification and verification of component

connectors’. Technical Report CSR-04-15, Eindhoven University of Technology, 2004.

8.Arbab F. and Rutten J.J.M.M. (2003), ‘A coinductive calculus of component connectors’. In Processing

of 16th International Workshop on Algebraic Development Techniques (WADT 2002), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2755, Springer, 2003, pp.35-56.

9.Clarke D., ReoLite: Reo coordination engine, CWI, the Netherlands; available at:

http://homepages.cwi.nl/~dave/reolite/(Jan 2006).

10.Ghadiri A. (2004),’A Tool for Constraint Automata Join’. BS project, Technical report, ECE Department

University of Tehran, Iran, 2004.

11.Ghassemi F. and Tasharofi S. (2005), ‘A Tool for Converting Reo Circuit to Constraint Automaton’. BS

project, Technical report, ECE Department University of Tehran, Iran, 2005.

12.Hamadi R. and Benatallah B. (2003), ‘A Petri net-based model for web service composition’. In

Proceedings of the 14th Australasian Database Conference, volume 17 of CRPITS, pages 191-200.

13.Hinz S., Schmidt K., and Stahl C. (2005), ‘Transforming BPEL to Petri nets’. In Proceedings of the 3rd

International Conference on Business Process Management, volume 2649 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 220-235, Nancy, France, September 2005.

14.Koehler J., Tirenni G. and Kumaran S. (2002), ‘From business process model to consistent

implementation: a case study for formal verification methods. In Proceedings of the 6th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, Lausanne, Switzerland, September 2002. IEEE.

pp.96-106.

15.Srivastava B. and Koehler J. (2003), ‘Web service composition - current solutions and open problems’, In

Proceedings of ICAPS'03 Workshop on Planning for Web Services, Trento, Italy, June, 2003.

16.Ter Beek M.H., Bucchiarone A. and Gnesi S. (2006), ‘A Survey on Service Composition Approaches:

From Industrial Standards to Formal Methods’. Technical Report 2006-TR-15, ISTI, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 2006.

17.Van der Aalst W.M.P.(2003),‘Challenges in business process management: Verification of business

processes using Petri nets’, Bulletin of the EATCS, 80:174-199, June 2003.

18.Web Services Business Process Execution Language Technical Committee. WS BPEL issues list, (2006);

available at: https://www.wendangku.net/doc/3719100803.html,/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html (Jan 2006).

19.Yang Y., Tan Q., and Xiao Y. (2005), ’verifying web services composition’. In Proceedings of the ER

2005 Workshops, volume 3770 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 354-363, Klagenfurt, Austria, October 2005.

20.Zlatev Z., Diakov N. and Pokraev S. (2004), ‘Construction of negotiation protocols for e-commerce

applications’, ACM, SIGecom Exchanges, 5(2), pp.12-22.

理发店管理系统设计文档

理发店管理系统设计说明书

目录一、文档简介 (3) 1.1 文档目的 (3) 1.2 背景 (3) 1.3 读者对象 (3) 1.4 定义 (4) 1.5 参考文献 (4) 1.6 术语与缩写解释 (4) 二、总体设计 (4) 2.1 需求规定 (4) 2.2 运行环境 (4) 2.3 物理结构示意图 (5) 2.4 总体结构图 (5) 2.5 客户端程序组成 (5) 2.6 基本设计概念和处理流程 (6) 三、接口设计 (7) 3.1 用户接口 (7) 3.2 外部接口 (8) 3.3 部接口 (8) 四、系统数据库设计 (10) 4.1 数据库环境说明 (10) 4.2 数据库的命名规则 (11) 4.3 逻辑结构设计 (11) 4.4 物理结构设计 (12) 五、系统出错处理设计 (13) 5.1 出错信息 (13) 5.2 补救措施 (14) 5.3 系统维护设计 (14)

一、文档简介 1.1 文档目的 1．编写本说明书的目的在于：（1）将系统划分成物理元素，即程序、文件、数据库、文档等。（2）设计软件结构，即将需求规格转换为体系结构，划分出程序的基本模块组成，确定模块间的相互关系，并确定系统的数据结构。 2．本说明书的用途在于寻找实现目标系统的各种不同方案，分析员从这些可供选择的方案中选取若干个合理的方案，为每个合理的方案都准备一份系统流程图，列出组成系统的物理元素，进行成本\效益分析，从中选出一个最佳方案向用户和使用部门负责推荐。如果用户和使用部门负责人接受了推荐的方案，分析员应该进一步为这个最佳方案设计软件结构。通常，设计出初步的软件结构后还要进一步改进，从而得到更合理的结构，进行必要的数据库设计，确定测试要求并且制定测试计划。 3．本说明书的主要读者为系统分析员和用户和使用部门的有关人员，为后面的系统开发提供依据。作为BSS理发店管理系统设计文档的重要组成部分，本文档主要对软件后台数据库的概念模型设计和物理模型设计做出了统一的规定，同时确定了每个表的数据字典结构。本文档是开发人员实际建立BSS数据库及其数据库对象的重要参考依据。同时本文档对软件的整个系统的结构关系进行了详细的描述，并对相关容作出了统一的规定。 1.2 背景理发店是人们日常生活中不可缺少的一部分，有一定规模的理发店具有多名理发师和众多顾客，一般情况下，当忙碌起来以后，很难记清楚每名理发师的工作量，不便于日后考核；同时大量的会员如果仅适用传统的纸质和卡片记录管理，容易出错，而且不方便统计。计算机应用技术迅猛发展，开发一套理发店的理发师和会员管理系统具有很强的现实意义。 1.3 读者对象本文档的主要读者包括： 1．本系统的设计人员：包括模块设计人员。 2．本系统的系统开发人员：包括数据库开发、编码人员。 3．本系统的测试人员。

接口自动化测试框架实例详解教程python+requests

接口自动化测试框架实例详解教程python+requests 前段时间由于公司测试方向的转型，由原来的web页面功能测试转变成接口测试，之前大多都是手工进行，利用postman和jmeter进行的接口测试，后来，组内有人讲原先web自动化的测试框架移驾成接口的自动化框架，使用的是java语言，但对于一个学java，却在学python的我来说，觉得python比起java更简单些，所以，我决定自己写python的接口自动化测试框架，由于本人也是刚学习python，这套自动化框架目前已经基本完成了，于是进行一些总结，便于以后回顾温习，有许多不完善的地方，也遇到了许多的问题，希望大神们多多指教。下面我就进行今天的主要内容吧。 1、首先，我们先来理一下思路。正常的接口测试流程是什么？脑海里的反应是不是这样的：确定测试接口的工具—> 配置需要的接口参数—> 进行测试—> 检查测试结果（有的需要数据库辅助）—> 生成测试报告（html报告）那么，我们就根据这样的过程来一步步搭建我们的框架。在这个过程中，我们需要做到业务和数据的分离，这样才能灵活，达到我们写框架的目的。只要好好做，一定可以成功。这也是我当初对自己说的。接下来，我们来进行结构的划分。我的结构是这样的，大家可以参考下： common：存放一些共通的方法 result：执行过程中生成的文件夹，里面存放每次测试的结果 testCase：用于存放具体的测试case testFile：存放测试过程中用到的文件，包括上传的文件，测试用例以及数据库的sql 语句 caselist：txt文件，配置每次执行的case名称 config：配置一些常量，例如数据库的相关信息，接口的相关信息等 readConfig：用于读取config配置文件中的内容 runAll：用于执行case

软件开发文档模板

软件开发文档模板 1 可行性研究报告可行性研究报告的编写目的是：说明该软件开发项目的实现在技术、经济和社会条件方面的可行性；评述为了合理地达到开发目标而可能先择的各种方案；说明论证所选定的方案。可行性研究报告的编写内容要求如下： 1.1 引言 1.1.1 编写目的 1.1.2 背景 1.1.3 定义 1.1.4 参考资料 1.2 可行性研究的前提 1.2.1 要求 1.2.2 目标 1.2.3 条件、假定和限制 1.2.4 进行可行性研究的方法 1.2.5 评价尺度 1.3 对现有系统的分析 1.3.1 数据流程和处理流程 1.3.2 工作负荷 1.3.3 费用开支 1.3.4 人员 1.3.5 设备 1.3.6 局限性 1.4 所建议的系统 1.4.1 对所建议系统的说明 1.4.2 数据流程各处理流程 1.4.3 改进之处 1.4.4 影响 1.4.4.1 对象设备的影响 1.4.4.2 对软件的影响 1.4.4.3 对用户单位机构的影响 1.4.4.4 对系统动行的影响 1.4.4.5 对开发的影响 1.4.4.6 对地点和设施的影响 1.4.4.7 对经费开支的影响 1.4.5 局限性 1.4.6 技术条件方面的可行性 1.5 可选择其他系统方案 1.5.1 可选择的系统方案 1 1.5.2 可选择的系统方案 2 …… 1.6 投资及收益分析 1.6.1 支出 1.6.1.1 基本建设投资

1.6.1.2 其他一次性支出 1.6.1.3 非一次性支出 1.6.2 收益 1.6. 2.1 一次性收益 1.6. 2.2 非一次性收益 1.6. 2.3 不可定量的收益 1.6.3 收益/投资比 1.6.4 投资回收周期 1.6.5 敏感性分析 1.7 社会条件方面的可行性 1.7.1 法律方面的可行性 1.7.2 使用方面的可行性 1.8 结论 2 项目开发计划编制项目开发计划的目的是用文件的形式，把对于在开发过程中各项工作的负责人员、开发进度所需经费预算、所需软、硬件条件等问题作出安排记载下来，以便根据本计划开展和检查本项目的开发工作。编制内容要求如下： 2.1 引言 2.1.1 编写目的 2.1.2 背景 2.1.3 定义 2.1.4 参考资料 2.2 项目概述 2.2.1 工作内容 2.2.2 主要参加人员 2.2.3 产品及成果 2.2. 3.1 程序 2.2. 3.2 文件 2.2. 3.3 服务 2.2. 3.4 非移交产品 2.2.4 验收标准 2.2.5 完成项目的最迟期限 2.2.6 本计划的审查者与批准者 2.3 实施总计划 2.3.1 工作任务的分解 2.3.2 接口人员 2.3.3 进度 2.3.4 预算 2.3.5 关键问题 2.4 支持条件 2.4.1 计算机系统支持 2.4.2 需要用户承担的工作 2.4.3 需由外单位提供的条件 2.5 专题计划要点

开发接口文档-API文档模板

XXX项目接口文档版本控制信息获取所有字段获取所有字段请求地址：/session/field/findAll 请求参数响应

请求例子：响应例子：{"code":"10000","exception":null,"isSuccess":true,"message":"成功，系统处理正常！ ","page":0,"pageSize":0,"returnObject":null,"returnValue":{"types":null,"villages":null,"companys":[{"iconColour":"","iconSize":0,"ico nStyle":"","id":4,"name":"XX"},{"iconColour":"","iconSize":0,"iconStyle":"","id":5,"name":"XX"},{"iconColour":"","iconSize":0,"iconSty le":"","id":7,"name":"XX"}]},"totals":0} 文件上传文件上传（ajax）请求地址：/session/file/upload 请求参数响应请求例子：var formData = new FormData(); ("file", [0]); $.ajax({ url : routePath + "/session/file/upload", type : 'POST', data : formData,

processData : false, contentType : false, success : function(result) { result = (result); if == "10000"){ ('上传成功！'); $("#editHeadPortrait").val } } }); 响应例子：returnValue里包含了 fileName和filePath 字段管理-所属类型新增所属类型请求地址：/session/fieldType/save 请求参数响应请求例子：响应例子：{"code":"10000","exception":null,"isSuccess":true,"message":"成功，系统处理正常！","page":0,"pageSize":0,"returnListSize":0,"returnObject":null,"returnValue":null,"totals":0}

七、python restful框架(python接口开发)

理解 1.每一个URL代表一种资源 2.客户端和服务端之间，传递这种资源的某种表现层,客户端通过四个HTTP动词对服务端资源进行操作，实现“表现层状态转化” 资源：网络的具体信息，如图片、文字等表现层："资源"是一种信息实体，它可以有多种外在表现形式。我们把"资源"具体呈现出来的形式，如，文本可以用txt格式表现，也可以用HTML格式、XML格式、JSON格式表现状态转化：访问一个网站，就代表了客户端和服务器的一个互动过程。在这个过程中，势必涉及到数据和状态的变化。 4个HTTP动词：GET用来获取资源，POST用来新建资源（也可以用于更新资源），PUT用来更新资源，DELETE用来删除资源。安装 flask restful 1.cmd输入：pip install flask,安装flask 2.cmd输入：pip install flask-restful，安装flask-restful 安装过程中会出现如下报错： You are using pip version 9.0.1, however version 19.2.3 is available. You should consider upgrading via the 'python -m pip install --upgrade pip' comm and. 解决方法升级pip python -m pip install --upgrade pip 注意：某些Flask版本下，引入模块时采用from flask.ext.restful import Api出错，则可以使用from flask_restful import Api 官网教程例证 restful.py 内容： #!/usr/bin/python3 # encoding:utf‐8 from flask import Flask,request from flask_restful import reqparse, abort, Api, Resource #初始化app、api app = Flask(__name__) api = Api(app) LISTS = [

文档3 阳光数码管理系统开发计划书

阳光数码信息管理系统开发计划书版本号：V1.0 日期：2017年2月18日

前言一、文档控制 1、文档更新记录 2、文档审核记录 3、文档去向记录二、阅读提示 1、文档类别开发计划书 2、使用对象东软公司项目组成员 XX公司相关人员

目录第1章引言 (1) 1.1 编写目的 (1) 1.2 背景 (1) 1.3 定义 (2) 1.4 参考资料 (3) 1.5 标准、条约和约定 (3) 第2章项目概述 (4) 2.1 项目目标 (4) 2.2 产品目标与范围 (4) 2.3 假设与约束 (4) 2.4 项目工作范围 (5) 2.5 应交付成果 (5) 2.5.1 需完成的软件 (5) 2.5.2 需提交用户的文档 (5) 2.5.3 须提交内部的文档 (5) 2.5.4 应当提供的服务 (6) 2.6 项目开发环境 (6) 2.7 项目验收方式与依据 (6) 第3章项目团队组织 (7) 3.1 组织结构 (7) 3.2 人员分工 (7) 3.3 协作与沟通 (7) 3.3.1 项目团队内部协作 (7) 3.3.2 项目接口人员 (8) 3.3.3 项目团队外部沟通与协作模式 (8) 第4章实施计划 (9) 4.1 风险评估及对策 (9) 4.2 工作流程 (9) 4.3 总体进度计划 (10)

4.4 项目控制计划 (11) 4.4.1 质量保证计划 (11) 4.4.2 进度控制计划 (12) 4.4.3 预算监控计划 (12) 4.4.4 配置管理计划 (12) 第5章支持条件 (13) 5.1 内部支持 (13) 5.2 客户支持 (13) 5.3 外包（可选） (13) 第6章预算 (14) 6.1 人员成本 (14) 6.2 设备成本 (14) 6.3 其它经费预算 (14) 6.4 项目合计经费预算 (14) 第7章关键问题 (15) 第8章专题计划要点 (16) 第9章词汇表 (17) 参考文献 (18)

OA协同办公管理系统开发文档资料讲解

O A协同办公管理系统开发文档

OA协同办公管理系统开发文档

目录第一章引言 (4) 1.1编写目的 (4) 1.2 背景及其范围 (5) 1.3名词解释 (5) 第二章项目概述 (6) 2.1 系统功能概述 (6) 2.2 主要外部接口 (6) 2.3 系统运行环境 (6) 2.4 支持用户端 (6) 2.5 系统开发环境 (7) 2.6 支持软件 (7) 2.7 开发过程 (7) 2.8 用户特点 (7) 第三章功能需求 (8) 3.1 前台框架草图 (8) 3.2 用户帐户管理 (8) 3.3 我的办公桌 (9) 3.4 公共事务 (10) 3.5 在线考试 (11) 3.6 财务管理 (11) 3.7 人力资源 (12) 3.8 附件程序 (13) 3.9 企业文档 (13) 3.10 企业信息管理 (14) 3.10 系统设置 (15)

第一章引言 1.1编写目的计算机技术、网络技术已经渗透到单位的日常工作中，大量的公文、报告、报表、数据等各类信息量越来越大，涉及到的部门、合作伙伴越来越广泛。传统的手工处理方式，文件、报表的传递方式和信息的利用方式已经不能满足单位发展的需要，影响了单位领导的决策和业务的发展，迫切需要利用已经拥有的计算机、网络资源，实现单位的信息化，加快内部的信息流通与信息的有效利用。从大部分单位的现状来看，虽然迫切需要实现信息化，但是，单位的许多现实情况制约单位信息化的发展，主要的问题有： ?没有合适的应用软件虽然拥有一定数量的计算机设备和网络设备，但是没有支持网络运行的应用软件，即使建成内部的计算机网络，也没有改善信息化应用的状态。一些部门和业务购买通用的业务管理软件，一定程度上实现个别业务的信息化，解决了部门的一些问题，但是，对单位管理者而言，得到的信息很少，没有发挥出计算机网络系统的作用。 ?技术队伍匮乏很多单位没有专门的信息管理部门和专职的技术人员，缺乏对单位信息化建设的规划和信息应用系统的管理。 ?信息化建设的目标不明确信息化建设对每一个单位来讲都是新事物，不知道如何才能够实现信息化，不清楚第一步该如何走。 ?偏重于业务信息系统的建设，对管理和辅助决策分析系统的建设投入不够，使计算机系统的建设停留在数据处理阶段，没有上升到信息资源利用的高度。 ?无法直接从各级、各类业务信息系统中采集数据，并加以综合利用。 ?大部分员工的计算机应用水平比较低。

接口测试总结文档

接口测试的总结文档第一部分：主要从问题出发，引入接口测试的相关内容并与前端测试进行简单对比，总结两者之前的区别与联系。但该部分只交代了怎么做和如何做？并没有解释为什么要做？第二部分：主要介绍为什么要做接口测试，并简单总结接口持续集成和接口质量评估相关内容。第一部分：首先，在做接口测试的过程中，经常有后端开发会问：后端接口都测试什么？怎么测的？后端接口测试一遍，前端也测试一遍，是不是重复测试了？于是，为了向开发解释上述问题，普及基本的测试常识，特意梳理了接口测试的相关内容以及其与前端测试的区别，使开发团队与测试团队在测试这件上达成基本的共识，提高团队协作效率，从而更好的保证产品质量。然后，我们试着回答上面的问题：问题1.1、后端接口都测试什么？ --回答这个问题，我们可以从接口测试活动内容的角度下手，看一下面这张图，基本反应了当前我们项目后端接口测试的主要内容：

问题1.2、我们怎么做接口测试？ --由于我们项目前后端调用主要是基于http协议的接口，所以测试接口时主要是通过工具或代码模拟http请求的发送与接收。工具有很多如：postman、jmeter、soupUI、 java+httpclient、robotframework+httplibrary等。问题2、后端接口测试一遍，前端也测试一遍，是不是重复测试了？ --回答这个问题，我们可以直接对比接口测试和app端测试活动的内容，如下图为app测试时需要覆盖或考虑内容：

从上面这两张图对比可以看出，两个测试活动中相同的部分有功能测试、边界分析测试和性能测试，其它部分由于各自特性或关注点不同需要进行特殊的测试，在此不做讨论。接下来我们针对以上三部分相同的内容再进行分析： 1、基本功能测试：由于是针对基本业务功能进行测试，所以这部分是两种测试重合度最高的一块，开发同学通常所指的也主要是这部分的内容。 2、边界分析测试：在基本功能测试的基础上考虑输入输出的边界条件，这部分内容也会有重复的部分（比如业务规则的边界）。但是，

软件开发技术文档编写规范

软件开发技术文档编写规范在项目开发过程中，应该按要求编写好十三种文档，文档编制要求具有针对性、精确性、清晰性、完整性、灵活性、可追溯性。 ◇可行性分析报告：说明该软件开发项目的实现在技术上、经济上和社会因素上的可行性，评述为了合理地达到开发目标可供选择的各种可能实施方案，说明并论证所选定实施方案的理由。 ◇项目开发计划：为软件项目实施方案制订出具体计划，应该包括各部分工作的负责人员、开发的进度、开发经费的预算、所需的硬件及软件资源等。 ◇软件需求说明书（软件规格说明书）：对所开发软件的功能、性能、用户界面及运行环境等作出详细的说明。它是在用户与开发人员双方对软件需求取得共同理解并达成协议的条件下编写的，也是实施开发工作的基础。该说明书应给出数据逻辑和数据采集的各项要求，为生成和维护系统数据文件做好准备。 ◇概要设计说明书：该说明书是概要实际阶段的工作成果，它应说明功能分配、模块划分、程序的总体结构、输入输出以及接口设计、运行设计、数据结构设计和出错处理设计等，为详细设计提供基础。 ◇详细设计说明书：着重描述每一模块是怎样实现的，包括实现算法、逻辑流程等。 ◇用户操作手册：本手册详细描述软件的功能、性能和用户界面，使用户对如何使用该软件得到具体的了解,为操作人员提供该软件各种运行情况的有关知识，特别是操作方法的具体细节。 ◇测试计划：为做好集成测试和验收测试，需为如何组织测试制订实施计划。计划应包括测试的内容、进度、条件、人员、测试用例的选取原则、测试结果允许的偏差范围等。 ◇测试分析报告：测试工作完成以后，应提交测试计划执行情况的说明，对测试结果加以分析，并提出测试的结论意见。 ◇开发进度月报：该月报系软件人员按月向管理部门提交的项目进展情况报告，报告应包括进度计划与实际执行情况的比较、阶段成果、遇到的问题和解决的办法以及下个月的打算等。 ◇项目开发总结报告：软件项目开发完成以后，应与项目实施计划对照，总结实际执行的情况，如进度、成果、资源利用、成本和投入的人力，此外，还需对开发工作做出评价，总结出经验和教训。 ◇软件维护手册：主要包括软件系统说明、程序模块说明、操作环境、支持软件的说明、维护过程的说明，便于软件的维护。 ◇软件问题报告：指出软件问题的登记情况，如日期、发现人、状态、问题所属模块等，为软件修改提供准备文档。 ◇软件修改报告：软件产品投入运行以后，发现了需对其进行修正、更改等问题，应将存在的问题、修改的考虑以及修改的影响作出详细的描述，提交审批。 1可行性分析报告 1 引言 1.1 编写目的：阐明编写可行性研究报告的目的，提出读者对象。

软件开发设计文档模板

软件文档编写指南封面格式：文档编号版本号文档名称：项目名称：项目负责人：编写年月日校对年月日审核年月日批准年月日开发单位系统规约说明书（System Specification）一．引言 A.文档的范围和目的 B.概述 1．目标 2．约束二．功能和数据描述 A.系统结构 1．结构关系图 2．结构关系图描述三．子系统描述 A.子系统N的结构图规约说明 B.结构字典 C.结构连接图和说明四．系统建模和模拟结构 A.用于模拟的系统模型

B.模拟结果 C.特殊性能五．软件项目问题 A.软件项目可行性研究报告 B.软件项目计划六．附录软件项目可行性研究报告（Report for Feasibility Study）一．引言 1．编写目的（阐明编写可行性研究报告的目的，指出读者对象） 2．项目背景（应包括：（1）所建议开发的软件名称；（2）项目的任务提出者、开发者、用户及实现单位；（3）项目与其他软件或其他系统的关系。） 3．定义（列出文档中用到的专门术语的定义和缩略词的原文。） 4．参考资料（列出有关资料的作者、标题、编号、发表日期、出版单位或资料来源。）二．可行性研究的前提 1．要求（列出并说明建议开发软件的基本要求，如（1）功能；（2）性能；（3）输出；（4）输入；（5）基本的数据流程和处理流程；（6）安全与保密要求；（7）与软件相关的其他系统；（8）完成期限。） 2．目标（可包括：（1）人力与设备费用的节省；（2）处理速度的提高；（3）控制精度和生产能力的提高；（4）管理信息服务的改进；（5）决策系统的改进；（6）人员工作效率的提高，等等。） 3．条件、假定和限制（可包括：（1）建议开发软件运行的最短寿命；（2）进行系统方案选择比较的期限；（3）经费来源和使用限制；（4）法律和政策方面的限制；（5）硬件、软件、运行环境和开发环境的条件和限制；（6）可利用的信息和资源；（7）建议开发软件投入使用的最迟时间。） 4．可行性研究方法 5．决定可行性的主要因素三．对现有系统的分析 1．处理流程和数据流程 2．工作负荷 3．费用支出（如人力、设备、空间、支持性服务、材料等项开支。） 4．人员（列出所需人员的专业技术类别和数量。） 5．设备 6．局限性（说明现有系统存在的问题以及为什么需要开发新的系统。）四．所建议技术可行性分析 1．对系统的简要描述 2．处理流程和数据流程 3．与现有系统比较的优越性 4．采用建议系统可能带来的影响（1）对设备的影响（2）对现有软件的影响

(仅供参考)服务器硬件入门基础知识

服务器硬件入门基础知识开篇一:服务器主板服务器主板概述对于服务器而言，稳定性才是首要，服务器必须承担长年累月高负荷的工作要求，而且不能像台式机一样随意的重起，为了提高起可靠性普遍的做法都是部件的冗余技术，而这一切的支持都落在主板的肩上。下面我就来看看有关服务器主板的一些特性: 1、首先，服务器的可扩展性决定着它们的专用板型为较大的ATX，EATX或WATX。 2、中高端服务器主板一般都支持多个处理器，所采用的CPU也是专用的CPU。 3、主板的芯片组也是采用专用的服务器/工作站芯片组，比方Intel E7520、ServerWorks GC-HE等等，不过像入门级的服务器主板，一般都采用高端的台式机芯片组(比如Intel875P芯片组) 4、服务器通常要扩展板卡(比如如网卡，SCSI卡等)，因此我们通常都会发现服务器主板上会有较多的PCI、PCI-X、PCI—E插槽。 5、服务器主板同时承载了管理功能。一般都会在服务器主板上集成了各种传感器，用于检测服务器上的各种硬件设备，同时配合相应管理软件，可以远程检测服务器，从而使网络管理员对服务器系统进行及时有效的管理。

6、在内存支持方面。由于服务器要适应长时间，大流量的高速数据处理任务，因此其能支持高达十几GB甚至几十GB的内存容量，而且大多支持ECC内存以提高可靠性(ECC内存是一种具有自动纠错功能的内存，由于其优越的性能使造价也相当高)。 7、存储设备接口方面。中高端服务器主板多采用SCSI接口、SATA接口而非IDE接口，并且支持RAID方式以提高数据处理能力和数据安全性。 8、在显示设备方面。服务器与工作站有很大不同，服务器对显示设备要求不高，一般多采用整合显卡的芯片组，例如在许多服务器芯片组中都整合有ATI的RAGE XL显示芯片，要求稍高点的就采用普通的AGP显卡。而如果是图形工作站，那一般都是选用高端的3DLabs、ATI等显卡公司的专业显卡。 9、在网络接口方面。服务器/工作站主板也与台式机主板不同，服务器主板大多配备双网卡，甚至是双千兆网卡以满足局域网与Internet的不同需求。 10、最后是服务器的价格方面。一般台式机主板顶天也不过1、2千，而服务器主板的价格则从1千多元的入门级产品到几万元甚至十几万元的高档产品都有! 推荐品牌：泰安、超微、Intel 开篇二:服务器CPU 服务器CPU概述服务器是网络中的重要设备，要接受少至几十人、多至成千上万人的访问，因此对服务器具有大数据量的快速吞吐、超强的稳定性、长时间运行等严格要求。所以说CPU是计算机的“大脑”，是衡量服务器

消息管理系统开发文档

消息管理系统设计与开发文档开发背景 XXX科技有限公司是一家以计算机软件维护、硬件维修为主的公司，随着公司规模的不断壮大，工作人员也在逐渐增多。开发一款消息管理系统已成为一个亟待解决的问题。该系统可以帮助企业快速地进行日常事务管理，大幅度提高员工的办公效率，方便员工内部交流，还可以方便员工和管理层的交流。系统需求随着中小企型企业的不断发展，企业内部员工的沟通就显得非常重要，通过一个消息管理系统就能很好的解决沟通困难的问题了，它可以在员工不访问外网的情况下进行发布消息、查看消息、回复消息等功能。这样可以大大加强员工与员工的工作交流。功能分析对企业内部网站来说，住处的即时性是要考虑的最大问题。每个人都可以发布自己的消息，其他人员可以通过刷新网站的方式来看到最新的消息，可以以对发表的消息进行回复。各角色的具体功能如下：普通员工：登录系统发布消息查看消息回复消息系统管理员：登录系统用户管理消息管理数据库分析与设计：在开发消息管理系统时，考虑到中小弄企业的需求，项目开发成本以及维护成本，本系统将采用mysql5.0数据库，数据库名为db_message。数据库共3张表，用来存储不同的信息。员工信息表、消息表、消息回复表。这样本系统的信息就全部存储下来了。实体分析用户/员工消息消息回复

图1（员工实体）图2（消息实体）图3（消息回复实体）实体对应的表

建表： --创建人员表t_emp create table t_emp( emp_id varchar(40), emp_name varchar(60), emp_sex int, emp_birth date, emp_phone varchar(20), emp_address varchar(100), join_time date, password varchar(30), is_mgr int default 0, constraint t_emp_id_pk primary key(emp_id) ); --创建消息表 create table t_message( message_id INT(20) not null AUTO_INCREMENT, message_title varchar(100), message_content text,

软件项目开发的文档编写标准化

软件项目开发的文档编写标准化在项目开发过程中，应该按要求编写好十三种文档，文档编制要求具有针对性、精确性、清晰性、完整性、灵活性、可追溯性。 ◇可行性分析报告：说明该软件开发项目的实现在技术上、经济上和社会因素上的可行性，评述为了合理地达到开发目标可供选择的各种可能实施方案，说明并论证所选定实施方案的理由。 ◇项目开发计划：为软件项目实施方案制订出具体计划，应该包括各部分工作的负责人员、开发的进度、开发经费的预算、所需的硬件及软件资源等。 ◇软件需求说明书（软件规格说明书）：对所开发软件的功能、性能、用户界面及运行环境等作出详细的说明。它是在用户与开发人员双方对软件需求取得共同理解并达成协议的条件下编写的，也是实施开发工作的基础。该说明书应给出数据逻辑和数据采集的各项要求，为生成和维护系统数据文件做好准备。 ◇概要设计说明书：该说明书是概要实际阶段的工作成果，它应说明功能分配、模块划分、程序的总体结构、输入输出以及接口设计、运行设计、数据结构设计和出错处理设计等，为详细设计提供基础。 ◇详细设计说明书：着重描述每一模块是怎样实现的，包括实现算法、逻辑流程等。 ◇用户操作手册：本手册详细描述软件的功能、性能和用户界面，使用户对如何使用该软件得到具体的了解,为操作人员提供该软件各种运行情况的有关知识，特别是操作方法的具体细节。 ◇测试计划：为做好集成测试和验收测试，需为如何组织测试制订实施计划。计划应包括测试的内容、进度、条件、人员、测试用例的选取原则、测试结果允许的偏差范围等。 ◇测试分析报告：测试工作完成以后，应提交测试计划执行情况的说明，对测试结果加以分析，并提出测试的结论意见。 ◇开发进度月报：该月报系软件人员按月向管理部门提交的项目进展情况报告，报告应包括进度计划与实际执行情况的比较、阶段成果、遇到的问题和解决的办法以及下个月的打算等。 ◇项目开发总结报告：软件项目开发完成以后，应与项目实施计划对照，总结实际执行的情况，如进度、成果、资源利用、成本和投入的人力，此外，还需对开发工作做出评价，总结出经验和教训。 ◇软件维护手册：主要包括软件系统说明、程序模块说明、操作环境、支持软件的说明、维护过程的说明，便于软件的维护。 ◇软件问题报告：指出软件问题的登记情况，如日期、发现人、状态、问题所属模块等，为软件修改提供准备文档。 ◇软件修改报告：软件产品投入运行以后，发现了需对其进行修正、更改等问题，应将存在的问题、修改的考虑以及修改的影响作出详细的描述，提交审批。可行性分析报告 1 引言1.1 编写目的：阐明编写可行性研究报告的目的，提出读者对象。1. 2 项目背景：应包括 ●所建议开发软件的名称

使用POSTMAN自动化接口测试步骤

Postman自动化接口测试当前环境： Window 7 - 64 Postman 版本（免费版）： Chrome App v5.5.3 在接口测试之前，要考虑一下几个问题：如何判断接口是否请求成功如何进行接口批量、定期测试如何处理依赖接口问题（比如商品下单的接口必须要求先登录）所以，接下来就主要分为 3 个部分进行介绍，以分别解决这 3 个问题。接口结果判断首先，既然是自动化测试，那么我们肯定需要工具 (Postman) 或者代码能帮我们直接判断结果是否符合预期。那么在接口测试上，大体就两个思路：判断请求返回的 code 是否符合预期判断请求返回的内容中是否包含预期的内容（关键字）接下来我们看看如何利用 Postman 来解决上述的问题：功能区在 Postman 中相关的功能在非常显眼的地方，Tests 功能的使用需要我们有一定的编程语言基础，目前支持的脚本语言即为 JavaScript 。但比较好的一点是，我们不需要再去考虑上下文问题以及运行环境的问题，也就是说我们只需要在这边完成结果逻辑判断的代码块即可。而Postman 还为我们提供了一些常用的代码模板，在 Tests 面板右边的 SNIPPETS 功能区中，所以对 JavaScript 不大了解问题也不大。代码编写相关将在下文进行具体介绍。脚本相关

先看上图的代码部分，我们可以发现 responseCode 、 responseBody 和 tests 三个变量（可直接使用）： responseCode ：包含请求的返回的状态信息(如：code) responseBody：为接口请求放回的数据内容（类型为字符串） tests ：为键值对形式，用于表示我们的测试结果是成功与否，最终展示在 Test Results 中。key ：（如：code 200）我们可以用来当做结果的一个描述 value：其值为布尔型，ture 表示测试通过， false 表示测试失败。所以上述代码应该不难理解了，而有了返回结果的数据以及表示结果成功与否的方式，那么我们“接口结果判断”的问题也就基本解决了。另外还有几个比较常用的： responseTime ：请求所耗时长 postman ：可以做的比较多，比如获取返回数据的头部信息：postman.getResponseHeader("") 设置全局变量：postman.setGlobalVariable("variable_key", "variable_value"); 更多功能可以查看官方文档(需梯子) 代码模板 Postman 在 SNIPPETS 功能区中为我们提供的代码模板已经能解决大部分情况了，以下先挑几个跟结果判断相关的进行讲解： Status code : Code is 200 //根据返回的 Code 判断请求情况 tests["Status code is 200"] = responseCode.code === 200; 1 2

软件开发文档规范标准[详]

附2: 软件文档编写向导文档分类项目包括如下几类文档：项目管理文档。包括：《软件项目计划》、《项目进度报告》、《项目开发总结报告》软件开发文档。包括：《需求规格说明》、《概要设计说明》、《详细设计说明》、《测试计划》、《软件测试分析报告》。产品文档。包括：《用户操作手册》《演示文件》。软件项目计划（Software Project Plan）一．引言 1．编写目的（阐明编写软件计划的目的，指出读者对象。） 2．项目背景（可包括：（1）项目委托单位、开发单位和主管部门；（2）该软件系统与其他系统的关系。） 3．定义（列出本文档中用到的专门术语的定义和缩略词的原文。） 4．参考资料（可包括：文档所引用的资料、规范等；列出资料的作者、标题、编号、发表日期、出版单位或资料来源。）二．项目概述 1. 工作内容（简要说明项目的各项主要工作,介绍所开发软件的功能性能等. 若不编写可行性研究报告,则应在本节给出较详细的介绍。) 2. 条件与限制（阐明为完成项目应具备的条件开发单位已具备的条件以及尚需创造的条件. 必要时还应说明用户及分合同承包者承担的工作完成期限及其它条件与限制。） 3. 产品（1）程序（列出应交付的程序名称使用的语言及存储形式。）（2）文档（列出应交付的文档。）（3）运行环境（应包括硬件环境软件环境。） 4．服务（阐明开发单位可向用户提供的服务. 如人员培训安装保修维护和其他运行支持。）5．验收标准

三．实施计划 1．任务分解（任务的划分及各项任务的负责人。） 2．进度（按阶段完成的项目,用图表说明开始时间完成时间。） 3．预算 4．关键问题（说明可能影响项目的关键问题,如设备条件技术难点或其他风险因素,并说明对策。）四．人员组织及分工五．交付期限六．专题计划要点（如测试计划等。）项目开发进度报告一．报告时间及所处的开发阶段二．给出进度 1．本周的主要活动 2．实际进展与计划比较三．所用工时（按不同层次人员分别计时。）四．所有机时五．工作遇到的问题及采取的对策六．本周完成的成果七．下周的工作计划八．特殊问题项目开发总结报告一．引言 1．编写目的（阐明编写总结报告的目的,指明读者对象。） 2．项目背景（说明项目的来源、委托单位、开发单位及主管部门。） 3．定义（列出报告中用到的专门术语定义和缩写词的原意。） 4．参考资料（列出这些资料的作者、标题、编号、发表日期、出版单位或资料来源，可包括：（1）项目开发计划；（2）需求规格说明书；（3）概要设计说明书；（4）详细设计说明书；（5）用户操作手册；（6）测试计划；（7）测试分析报告（8）本报告引用的其他资料、采用的开发标准或开发规范。）

管理信息系统接口方案

1.管理信息系统对接方案 1.1接口方案描述投标报价和费用控制是项目管理的重要组成部分，投标报价和费用控制系统应与项目管理信息平台统一标准，规范系统间的接口标准，实现投标报价和费用控制软件与项目管理信息系统既相对独立，又无缝对接。数据对接是进行数据沟通、整合信息最佳方式，能让不同领域中相对专业的软件系统彼此互补，进而让企业信息化系统的整体运作效能达到相对最佳化。接口主要是解决两个系统数据相互交换读写的问题。解决方法有如下三种。第一种方式：用直接读写数据库的方式，先建立特定权限的数据库访问用户(只能访问接口信息相关的部分数据表，而不是全部)。将读和写分开考虑，在读数据时可以直接读数据源表，在需要写数据时，写到双方约定的中间表，并加上写信息操作日志。这样在读数据时可以保证数据的及时性；由于是写在中间表，并不影响原来系统的数据；系统并且记录了读写数据日志，这样做到有据可查，减少不必要的纠分。为了保证双方相互访问的透明与高效，可以制定两方都认可的数据访问规范性文档，明确如：数据库名、密码、可读表、可写表，及具体表结构、字段的含义等信息。我们全力配合，根据需要开放数据库结构。第二种方式：使用EXCEL、XML（可扩展标记语言，可以用来标记数据、定义数据类型，是一种常用的数据交换格式），或者文本文件，作为中间载体来实现数据交互。EXCEL简单明了，开发人员和用户都直接能看明白，对于结构简单数据的可用EXCEL，对于有关联关系的复合数据选可用XML。只要双方约定一个统一的数据交换规范，制定好格式，实现起来也最容易。第三种方式：通过应用程序接口（Application Programming Interface，简称：API），

如何使用eoLinker进行api接口测试

如何使用eoLinker进行api接口测试 eoLinker一键测试你的接口是否正常运作，一键测试你的接口是否正常运作，支持在线、本地（localhost）测试、支持跨域测试、支持文件测试和强大的参数构造器。与Postman相同，eoLinker通过填写URL，header，body等就可以发送一个请求，同时获取返回结果，能够发送任何类型的http请求，支持GET/POST/PUT/DELETE/PATCH/OPTIONS/HEAD等。 1、发送请求（1）指发送请求的方式，最常用的是GET和POST。点击下拉列表可以看到共9种请求方式供选择；（2）请求的URL，即接口地址；（3）可设置请求头部，包括Header及Auth认证；（4）请求参数支持表单(Form-data)、RESTful、源数据（Raw）格式，并支持表单转源数据；（5）点击可以以键值对的方式添加URL参数；（6）获取返回结果分为body和header，按需进行查看。 Body页面： Header页面

2、设置参数默认值在编辑接口参数信息时，点击“更多设置”，填入参数值可能性即可。测试时参数值将被自动填入，设置多个值可能性可在测试时按需选择。编辑接口界面测试界面

3、使用参数构造器该功能可对原始参数进行渲染转换，获得渲染转换后的参数。构造参数操作如下其意思分别表示： (1) 参数初始值； (2) 选择的参数构造操作；

(3) 参数构造表达式； (4) 参数构造后的结果。 4、为接口添加环境对项目进行环境管理，设置环境变量、请求头、前置URI等信息，在接口测试时便可选择对应环境，一键进行测试。添加环境操作下拉框可选择接口环境 5、Mock简单测试在api的编辑页面，高级mock里面，输入mock的规则就行。eolinker的mock 是基于mockjs来改的，不过规则大同小异，规则可以参考这里https://www.wendangku.net/doc/3719100803.html,/examples.html