Abstract
In the field of software architecture, there has been a paradigm shift from describing the outcome of architecting process mostly described by component and connector (know-what) to documenting architectural design decisions and their rationale (know-how) which leads to the production of an architecture. This paradigm shift results in emergence of various models and related tools for capturing, managing and sharing architectural design decisions and their rationale explicitly. This paper analyzes existing architectural design decisions models and provides a criteria-based comparison on tools that support these models. The major contribution of this paper is twofold: to show that all of these models have a consensus on capturing the essence of an architectural design decision; and to clarify the major difference among the tools and show what desired features are missing in these tools.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | 2009 Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture and European Conference on Software Architecture, WICSA/ECSA 2009 |
| Publisher | IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers |
| Pages | 293-296 |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| ISBN (Print) | 9781424449859 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2009 |
| Externally published | Yes |
| Event | 2009 Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture and European Conference on Software Architecture, WICSA/ECSA 2009 - Cambridge, United Kingdom Duration: 14 Sep 2009 → 17 Sep 2009 |
Conference
| Conference | 2009 Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture and European Conference on Software Architecture, WICSA/ECSA 2009 |
|---|---|
| Country | United Kingdom |
| City | Cambridge |
| Period | 14/09/09 → 17/09/09 |
Cite this
}
Architectural design decision : existing models and tools. / Shahin, Mojtaba; Liang, Peng; Khayyambashi, Mohammad Reza.
2009 Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture and European Conference on Software Architecture, WICSA/ECSA 2009. IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2009. p. 293-296 5290823.Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference Paper › Research › peer-review
TY - GEN
T1 - Architectural design decision
T2 - existing models and tools
AU - Shahin, Mojtaba
AU - Liang, Peng
AU - Khayyambashi, Mohammad Reza
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
N2 - In the field of software architecture, there has been a paradigm shift from describing the outcome of architecting process mostly described by component and connector (know-what) to documenting architectural design decisions and their rationale (know-how) which leads to the production of an architecture. This paradigm shift results in emergence of various models and related tools for capturing, managing and sharing architectural design decisions and their rationale explicitly. This paper analyzes existing architectural design decisions models and provides a criteria-based comparison on tools that support these models. The major contribution of this paper is twofold: to show that all of these models have a consensus on capturing the essence of an architectural design decision; and to clarify the major difference among the tools and show what desired features are missing in these tools.
AB - In the field of software architecture, there has been a paradigm shift from describing the outcome of architecting process mostly described by component and connector (know-what) to documenting architectural design decisions and their rationale (know-how) which leads to the production of an architecture. This paradigm shift results in emergence of various models and related tools for capturing, managing and sharing architectural design decisions and their rationale explicitly. This paper analyzes existing architectural design decisions models and provides a criteria-based comparison on tools that support these models. The major contribution of this paper is twofold: to show that all of these models have a consensus on capturing the essence of an architectural design decision; and to clarify the major difference among the tools and show what desired features are missing in these tools.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=74349083963&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1109/WICSA.2009.5290823
DO - 10.1109/WICSA.2009.5290823
M3 - Conference Paper
AN - SCOPUS:74349083963
SN - 9781424449859
SP - 293
EP - 296
BT - 2009 Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture and European Conference on Software Architecture, WICSA/ECSA 2009
PB - IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ER -