The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.04 - July/August (2010 vol.27)
pp: 65-71
James Hill , Indiana University/Purdue University at Indianapolis, Indianapolis
D Schmidt , Vanderbilt University, Nashville
James Edmondson , Vanderbilt University, Nashville
Aniruddha Gokhale , Vanderbilt Univresity, Nashville
ABSTRACT
The end-to-end evaluation of distributed systems' quality-of-service (QoS) properties such as performance, reliability, and security has historically occurred late in the software life cycle. As a result, many design flaws that affect QoS aren't found and fixed in a timely and cost-effective manner. Model-driven engineering—particularly, domain-specific modeling languages (DSMLs) coupled with system execution modeling tools—can enable agile development of distributed systems and facilitate continuous system integration testing to improve quality assurance of QoS properties throughout the software life cycle. For example, the authors have realized such agile techniques in an open-source DSML-based system execution modeling tool called CUTS (Component Workload Emulator [Coworker] Utilization Test Suite). They've used CUTS as a case study to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate how DSML-based system execution modeling tools can support lightweight and adaptable software development and QoS assurance processes.
INDEX TERMS
agile techniques, continuous system integration, distributed systems, domain-specific modeling languages, model-driven engineering, system execution modeling tools
CITATION
James Hill, D Schmidt, James Edmondson, Aniruddha Gokhale, "Tools for Continuously Evaluating Distributed System Qualities", IEEE Software, vol.27, no. 4, pp. 65-71, July/August 2010, doi:10.1109/MS.2009.197
REFERENCES
1. M. Pezzini and Y.V. Natis, Trends in Platform Middleware: Disruption Is in Sight, tech. report, Gartner, 24 Sept. 2007; www.gartner.comDisplayDocument?doc_cd=152076 .
2. M. Bell, Service-Oriented Modeling: Service Analysis, Design, and Architecture, Wiley & Sons, 2008.
3. H.W.J. Rittel and M.M. Webber, "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning," Policy Sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, 1973, pp. 155–169.
4. P. Abrahamsson et al., "New Directions on Agile Methods: A Comparative Analysis," Proc. 25th Int'l Conf. Software Eng. (ICSE 03), IEEE CS Press, 2003, pp. 244–254.
5. D. Saff and M.D. Ernst, "An Experimental Evaluation of Continuous Testing during Development," Proc. ACM SIGSOFT Int'l Symp. Software Testing and Analysis, ACM Press, 2004, pp. 76–85.
6. D.C. Schmidt, "Guest Editor's Introduction: Model-Driven Engineering," Computer, vol. 39, no. 2, 2006, pp. 25–31.
7. G. Karsai et al., "Model-Integrated Development of Embedded Software," Proc. IEEE, vol. 91, no. 1, 2003, pp. 145–164.
8. C.U. Smith and L.G. Williams, Performance Solutions: A Practical Guide to Creating Responsive, Scalable Software, Addison-Wesley Professional, 2001.
9. J.H. Hill et al., "Unit Testing Non-functional Concerns of Component-Based Distributed Systems," Proc. 2nd Int'l Conf. Software Testing, Veri?cation, and Validation (ICST 09), IEEE CS Press, 2009, pp. 406–415.
19 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool