A Comprehensive approach for the Development of Modular Software Architecture Description Languages
In light of an easily extensible ADL language, which is easy to support and build, the paper presents a perfect solution. Following are some points regarding xADL
- While extension of features can look attractive as xADL addresses syntactic compatibility and extensibility but since the semantic compatibility is entirely a developer’s responsibility, propagating semantics to across developing teams and ensuring its correctness and uniqueness is an additional burden for a developer. As such, a developer may choose to go with domain-specific ADL which can provide as required features in order to save time, efforts and money.
- xADL is an effort to move away from proprietary ADL solutions (fit-in-all solution) by utilizing a standard and extensible XML-based representation for software architectures. But, it lacks support for behavioral descriptions as well as any accompanying analysis tools. It (xADL 2.0) lacks support for distributed and dynamic architectures.
- It does not solve the Feature interaction problem. A problem from “Architecture “which states that A feature interaction is some way in which a feature or features modify or influence another feature in defining overall system behavior. A bad feature interaction is one that causes the specification to be incomplete, inconsistent, or un-implementable.
- xADL is best for believer of “fit-all in one” as well as those who know the advantages of XML over other data formats as a standardized means for transferring and relating information. Also, its tool base like archEdit, Visio for xADL, XML Spy, Apache Xerces etc is strong which makes it a strong candidate for ADL specification and extension.
No comments:
Post a Comment