Evaluating Off-The-Shelf Architectural Components

Evaluating Off-The-Shelf Architectural Components

Kendra Cooper Lawrence Chung Weimin Ma

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

The Component-Aware Technology (CAT) Lab.

Department of Computer Science

The University of Texas at Dallas

mailto:[email protected]



aim:BuddyIcon?src=http://www.coolbuddy.com/icon/animals/animals099.gif

What do I need ???

What is the type of HACS Controller?

What is the type of AC Controller?

An Example:Home Appliance Control System (HACS)


http://www.controlyourhome.com/products/Audrey_main_white.gif

Evaluating Home Appliance Control System (HACS) Components

How to effectively evaluate components, simple and composite?


UML Class Diagram as Model of Software Components

Figure 1: Results for matching and ranking OTS components

Architectural model for each component set/vendor is represented in UML class diagram.

Figure 3: UML class diagram model of component set 4



Outline

A Scenario for Using Software Components

Conclusions

Similarity Measure

Criteria-Based User Query

Evaluation of Components

The Notion of Distance

The Notion of Criteria

Case-based scheme Evaluation of Simple Components

(E.g., Evaluate AC Controller; Evaluate HACS Controller)

Evaluation of Relationships

Evaluation of Composite Components

Analytic hierarchy process scheme


User

Evaluator

1.2. Is there an AC Controller with feature “Set Temp”?

3. Searching …

4. Component set 3>>4>{1, 2}

5. Is there a HACS Controller with feature “Check Status”?

6. Searching …

7. Component set 3>>4>>1>>2

1.1. System controller

11. A possible ranking: Component set 3>>{4, 2}>>1

8. Do HACS Controller and AC Controller fit together well?

9. Component set {2, 3}>>{1, 4}

10. Aggregate the three evaluations.

A Scenario for Using Software Components

Component Sets/Vendors

1,2

3,4

>>: better match


Distance is 1.Distance is 1.

Distance is 1.

Similarity Measure: The Notion of Distance

Distance is 1.

Distance is 2.？

Criterion a: number of figures.Criterion b: number & shape of figures.

Criteria are necessary for software components evaluation!

Simple Component: Composite Component:

Distance is 1.

Distance is 2.Distance is 3.？

Type of relationship & number of extra intermediaries

Criterion a: number of figures.Criterion b: number & shape of figures.

No context consideration.

Distance is 0. ？


Similarity Measure: The Notion of Criteria


Criteria-Based User Query

Unstructured user query:

Using the criteria and through communication, the evaluator can turn it into criteria-based structure (à la Case-Based Reasoning):

(Class Name) AC Controller(Attribute) Temperature(Operation) setTemperature

(Class Name) HACS Controller(Attribute) Status(Operation) checkStatus

I want a HACS system whose

HACS controller has feature “Check Status”

and AC controller has feature “Set Temp”.

(Association)

Sub-query 1: Sub-query 2:


Sub-query 1:(Class Name) AC Controller(Attribute) Temperature(Operation) setTemperature

Component Set 1:(Class Name) AC Conditioner(Attribute) temp(Operation)

Component Set 2:(Class Name) AC Conditioner(Attribute) temp(Operation)

Component Set 3:(Class Name) AC Controller(Attribute) temperature(Operation) settemp

Component Set 4:(Class Name) Temperature Controller(Attribute) temperature(Operation) setTemperature

S_m: 1 - (½ + 1 + 0)/3 = 0.5.

S_m: 1- (½ + 1 + 0)/3 = 0.5.

S_m: 1 - (1 + 1 + 1)/3 = 0.

S_m: 1 – (½ + 1 + 1)/3 = 0.167.

Evaluation of Components for “AC Controller” Based on Case-based Scheme

Figure 2: UML class diagram model of component set 1Criteria

Sim_component_set (“AC Controller”, component set 1)

"[

1i

i in feature, AC Controller, component set 1i

priority

X %_m(i)] priority

i in feature, AC Controller, component set 1


Sub-query 2:(Class Name) HACS Controller(Attribute) Status(Operation) checkStatus

Component Set 1:(Class Name) System Control(Attribute) (Operation) getHistory

Component Set 2:(Class Name) System Control(Attribute) (Operation)

Component Set 3:(Class Name) HACS Interaction Device(Attribute)(Operation) checkstatus

Component Set 4:(Class Name) HACS Controller(Attribute) (Operation)

S_m: 1 – (½ + 0 + ¼)/3 = 0.75.

S_m: 1 – (½ + 0 + 0)/3 = 0.833.

S_m: 1 – (½ + 0 + 1)/3 = 0.5.

S_m: 1 – (1 + 0 + 0)/3 = 0.667.

Evaluation of Components for “HACS Controller” Based on Case-based Scheme


Criteria

Sim_component_set (“AC Controller”, component set 1)

"[

1i

i in feature, AC Controller, component set 1i

priority

X %_m(i)] priority

i in feature, AC Controller, component set 1


Sub-query 1 and Sub-query 2

Component Set 1:(# of Relationships) 2 (Relationship Type) {1 Association, 1 generalization}

Component Set 2:(# of Relationships) 1(Relationship Type) {1 association}

Component Set 3:(# of Relationships) 1(Relationship Type) {1 association}

Component Set 4:(# of Relationships) 2(Relationship Type) {1 association, 1 generalization}

Distance: 2

Distance: 0 Distance: 0

Distance: 2

Evaluation of Relationship between Components

Criteria




Similarity (Component Set 1):0.75

Similarity (AC Controller)0.5 Similarity (relationship)

1

Similarity (HACS Controller)0.75

Evaluation of Composite Components

Ranking of component sets for user’s query: 3>>{4, 2, 1}

? 3>>{4, 2}>>1

Ranking of “AC Controller”: 3 >> 4>> {1, 2}Ranking of “HACS Controller”: 3>> 4>> 1>> 2Ranking of relationship between components: {2, 3} >> {4, 1}

(Sim(AC Controller) + Sim(Relationship between AC-HACS) + Sim(HACS Controller))/

(#component+#relationships),

where Sim(Relationship between AC-HACS) = (#extra-relationships+#relationship-mismatch)/

(#relationship-in-query+#possible-relationship-attributes)

SetComponentSim )1__(

....

Component Sets/Vendors = {1, 2, 3, 4}


Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) EvaluationComponent Evaluation

Class Class Relationship

Class nameAttribute

NameOperation

Name

Component Set 1

Component Set 2

Component Set 3

Component Set 4

Class Name Attribute Name

Operation Name

Class Relationship

Priorities

Class Name 1 2 4 4/3 0.4

Attribute Name

1/2 1 2 2/3 0.2

Operation Name

1/4 1/2 1 1/3 0.1

Class Relationship

3/4 3/2 3 1 0.3

Example analytic hierarchy of criteria

Example relative priorities of criteria

Advantage of AHP:Assist in identifying and weighting selection criteriaRelative priority or weighting for alternatives


Pairwise Comparison of Criteria

Class Name

Com_Set_1 Com_Set_2 Com_Set_3 Com_Set_4 Priorities

Com_Set_1 1 1 2/3 2/3 0.2Com_Set_2 1 1 2/3 2/3 0.2

Com_Set_3 3/2 3/2 1 1 0.3

Com_Set_4 3/2 3/2 1 1 0.3

For Class Name, Attribute Name, and Operation Name,

))1__,(__,(()1__,( SetComACsetcomponentSimCriterionMeasureSetComCriterionMeasure

.5.02

5.05.0

Attribute Name


Com_Set_1 1 1 1 1 0.25Com_Set_2 1 1 1 1 0.25

Com_Set_3 1 1 1 1 0.25

Com_Set_4 1 1 1 1 0.25

Operation Name


Com_Set_1 1 X 1/8 ¼ 0.08Com_Set_2 X X X X 0.00

Com_Set_3 8 X 1 2 0.62

Com_Set_4 4 X 1/2 1 0.30

Class Relationship


Com_Set_1 X X X X 0.0Com_Set_2 X 1 1 X 0.5

Com_Set_3 X 1 1 X 0.5

Com_Set_4 X X X X 0.0

,0.0)2__,_( SetComNameOperationMeasureSo Com_Set_2’s priority is zero and not involved in pairwise comparison.

,0.0)1__,Re_( SetComlationshipClassMeasure

So Com_Set_1 and Com_Set_4’s priorities are zero and not involved in pairwise comparison.

2/)))1__,(__,( SetComHACSsetcomponentSimCriterionMeasure

For Class relationship,

)1__,Re_( SetComlationshipClassMeasure

)1__(}))__(Re({ SetCominiprelationshSimiSetCominlationshipSimMax

.022

,0.0)4__,Re_( SetComlationshipClassMeasure


Tree Representation of AHP Process

Class Name(0.4)

CS1 0.2CS2 0.2CS3 0.3CS4 0.3

Attribute Name(0.2)

CS1 0.25CS2 0.25CS3 0.25CS4 0.25

Operation Name(0.1)

CS1 0.08CS2 0.00CS3 0.62CS4 0.30

Class

Class Name(0.4)

Attribute Name(0.2)

Operation Name(0.1)

CS1 0.2 0.25 0.08CS2 0.2 0.25 0.00CS3 0.3 0.25 0.62CS4 0.3 0.25 0.30

Class Relationship(0.3)

CS1 0.0CS2 0.5CS3 0.5CS4 0.0

Component Evaluation

Class Name(0.4)

Attribute Name(0.2)

Operation Name(0.1)

Class Relationship

(0.3)

Priorities

CS1 0.2 0.25 0.08 0.0 0.138CS2 0.2 0.25 0.00 0.5 0.280CS3 0.3 0.25 0.62 0.5 0.382CS4 0.3 0.25 0.30 0.0 0.200

Ranking of component sets for user’s query: 3>>2>>4>>1 ?


Conclusions

Hierarchy of criteria for component evaluation

Cased-based scheme for similarity-based evaluation

Contributions

Application to a suite of UML diagrams

Future Work

Technique for evaluating architectural components using UML class diagrams

Refinements of distance and criteria (context information)

AHP scheme evaluation


Documents

Evaluating Off-The-Shelf Architectural Components