UML 1.4 versus UML 2.0 as Languages to Describe Software Architectures.

ML 1.4 is widely accepted as the standard for representing the various software artifacts generated by a development process. For this reason, there have been attempts to use this language to represent the software architec- ture of systems as well. Unfortunately, these attempts have ended in representa- tions (boxes and lines) already criticized by the software architecture commu- nity. Recently, OMG has published a draft that will constitute the future UML 2.0 specification. In this paper we compare the capacities of UML 1.4 and UML 2.0 to describe software architectures. In particular, we study extensions of both UML versions to describe the static view of the C3 architectural style (a simplification of the C2 style). One of the results of this study is the difficulties found when using the UML 2.0 metamodel to describe the concept of connector in a software architecture

Pushouts in software architecture design

A classical approach to program derivation is to progressively extend a simple specification and then incrementally refine it to an implementation. We claim this approach is hard or impractical when reverse engineering legacy software architectures. We present a case study that shows optimizations and pushouts--in addition to refinements and extensions--are essential for practical stepwise development of complex software architectures.NSF CCF 0724979NSF CNS 0509338NSF CCF 0917167NSF DGE-1110007FCT SFRH/BD/47800/2008FCT UTAustin/CA/0056/200