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

Abstract

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