The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.06 - Nov.-Dec. (2013 vol.30)
pp: 46-53
Uwe Zdun , University of Vienna
Rafael Capilla , Rey Juan Carlos University
Huy Tran , University of Vienna
Olaf Zimmermann , University of Applied Sciences of Eastern Switzerland, Rapperswil (HSR FHO)
ABSTRACT
Software architects must sustain design decisions to endure throughout software evolution. Several criteria can help them assess decisions' sustainability. In addition, industry and research projects have applied different techniques to make architectural design decisions sustainable; their examples offer solutions and lessons learned.
INDEX TERMS
Documentation, Sustainable development, Software architecture, Context awareness, Computer architecture, Customer relationship management, Maintenance engineering,software development, architectural decisions, architectural knowledge, design decisions, design decision sustainability, requirements, software architecture, software evolution, sustainability
CITATION
Uwe Zdun, Rafael Capilla, Huy Tran, Olaf Zimmermann, "Sustainable Architectural Design Decisions", IEEE Software, vol.30, no. 6, pp. 46-53, Nov.-Dec. 2013, doi:10.1109/MS.2013.97
REFERENCES
1. M.A. Babar et al., Software Architecture Knowledge Management: Theory and Practice, Springer, 2009.
2. A.H. Dutoit et al., Rationale Management in Software Engineering, Springer, 2006.
3. H. Koziolek, “Sustainability Evaluation of Software Architectures: A Systematic Review,” Proc. Joint ACM SIGSOFT Conf.—QoSA and ACM SIGSOFT Symp.—ISARCS on Quality of Software Architectures—QoSA and Architecting Critical Systems—ISARCS, ACM, 2011, pp. 3-12.
4. P. Clements, R. Kazman, and M. Klein, Evaluating Software Architectures: Methods and Case Studies, Addison-Wesley, 2001.
5. A. Jansen and J. Bosch, “Software Architecture as a Set of Architectural Design Decisions,” Proc. 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conf. Software Architecture, IEEE CS, 2005, pp. 109-120.
6. R. Capilla, F. Nava, and C. Carrillo, “Effort Estimation in Capturing Architectural Knowledge,” Proc. 23rd Conf. Automated Software Eng. (ASE 08), IEEE CS, 2008, pp. 208-217.
7. O. Zimmermann et al., “Combining Pattern Languages and Reusable Architectural Decision Models into a Comprehensive and Comprehensible Design Method,” Proc. 7th Working IEEE/IFIP Conf. Software Architecture, IEEE CS, 2008, pp. 157-166.
8. M. Galster, “Dependencies, Traceability and Consistency in Software Architecture: Towards a View-Based Perspective,” Proc. 5th European Conf. Software Architecture: Companion Vol. (ECSA 11), ACM, 2011, article 1.
9. I. Lytra, H. Tran, and U. Zdun, “Constraint-Based Consistency Checking between Design Decisions and Component Models for Supporting Software Architecture Evolution,” Proc. 16th European Conf. Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR 12), IEEE CS, 2012, pp. 287-296.
10. H. Tran, I. Lytra, and U. Zdun, “Derivation of Domain-Specific Architectural Knowledge Views from Governance and Security Compliance Metadata,” Proc. 28th ACM Symp. Applied Computing (SAC 13), ACM, 2013, pp. 1728-1733.
11. H. Tran, U. Zdun, and S. Dustdar, “VbTrace: Using View-Based and Model-Driven Development to Support Traceability in Process-Driven SOAs,” Software and Systems Modeling, vol. 10, no. 1, 2011, pp. 5-29.
12. G. Fairbanks, Just Enough Software Architecture: A Risk-Driven Approach, Marshall & Brainerd, 2010.
13. O. Zimmermann, N. Schuster, and P. Eeles, Modeling and Sharing Architectural Decisions, Part 1: Concepts, IBM developerWorks, 2008.
197 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool