SOCAM: a service-oriented computing architecture modeling method (original) (raw)

References

  1. Abrahamsson, P., Babar, M.A., Kruchten, P.: Agility and architecture: can they coexist? IEEE Softw. 27(2), 16–22 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2010.36
    Article Google Scholar
  2. Al-Shammari, H.Q., Lawey, A.Q., El-Gorashi, T.E.H., Elmirghani, J.M.H.: Resilient service embedding in IoT networks. IEEE Access 8, 123571–123584 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3005936
    Article Google Scholar
  3. Allen, E., Seaman, C.: Likert scales and data analyses. Qual. Prog. 40(7), 64–65 (2007)
    Google Scholar
  4. Andriyanto, A., Doss, R., Yustianto, P.: Adopting soa and microservices for inter-enterprise architecture in sme communities. In: 2019 International Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Information Engineering (ICEEIE), vol. 6, pp. 282–287 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEEIE47180.2019.8981437
  5. Angelov, S., de Beer, P.: Designing and applying an approach to software architecting in agile projects in education. J. Syst. Softw. 127, 78–90 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.01.029
    Article Google Scholar
  6. Arsanjani, A., Ghosh, S., Allam, A., Abdollah, T., Gariapathy, S., Holley, K.: Soma: a method for developing service-oriented solutions. IBM Syst. J. 47(3), 377–396 (2008)
    Article Google Scholar
  7. Barclay, D., Higgins, C., Thompson, R.: The partial least squares (pls) approach to causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technol. Stud. 2(2), 285–309 (1995)
    Google Scholar
  8. Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R.: Software Architecture in Practice, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc, Boston (2003)
    Google Scholar
  9. Bianco, P., Kotermanski, R., Merson, P.: Evaluating a Service-Oriented Architecture. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2007-TR-015, SEI (2007)
  10. Bianco, P., Lewis, G., Merson, P., Simanta, S.: Architecting Service-Oriented Systems. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2011-TN-008, SEI (2011)
  11. Boehm, B., Egyed, A., Kwan, J., Port, D., Shah, A., Madachy, R.: Using the winwin spiral model: a case study. Computer 31(7), 33–44 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1109/2.689675
    Article Google Scholar
  12. Boehm, B., Turner, R.: Management challenges to implementing agile processes in traditional development organizations. IEEE Softw. 22(5), 30–39 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2005.129
    Article Google Scholar
  13. Bonham, A.: Microservices - when to react vs. orchestrate. https://bit.ly/336goG6 (2017). Accessed 15 May 2021
  14. Bézivin, J., Dupé, G., Jouault, F., Pitette, G., Rougui, J.E.: First experiments with the atl model transformation language: Transforming xslt into xquery. In: 2nd OOPSLA Workshop on Generative Techniques in the context of Model Driven Architecture (2003)
  15. Cabrera, O., Oriol, M., Franch, X., Marco, J.: A context-aware monitoring architecture for supporting system adaptation and reconfiguration. Computing (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-021-00923-z
    Article MathSciNet Google Scholar
  16. Chin, W.: Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling, pp. 295–336. Springer, Berlin (1998)
    Google Scholar
  17. Chin, W.W.: How to Write Up and Report PLS Analyses, pp. 655–690. Springer, Berlin (2010)
    Google Scholar
  18. Clark, K.: Microservices, soa, and apis: Friends or enemies? https://ibm.co/3vYvwSn(2016). Accessed 15 May 2021
  19. Clements, P., Garlan, D., Little, R., Nord, R., Stafford, J.: Documenting software architectures: Views and beyond. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’03. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2003). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=776816.776928
  20. Corporation, M.: Msf process model v. 3.1 (2002). https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/confirmation.aspx?id=13870
  21. Easterbrook, S., Singer, J., Storey, M.A., Damian, D.: Selecting Empirical Methods for Software Engineering Research, pp. 285–311. Springer, London (2008)
    Google Scholar
  22. Falk, R., Miller, N.: A Primer for Soft Modeling. University of Akron Press, Akron (1992)
    Google Scholar
  23. Fielding, R.T.: Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Irvine (2000). AAI9980887
  24. Fornell, C.: Selecting Empirical Methods for Software Engineering Research, pp. 407–450. American Marketing Association, Chicago (1987)
    Google Scholar
  25. Fowler, M., Highsmith, J.: The agile manifesto. Softw. Dev. 9(8), 28–35 (2001)
    Google Scholar
  26. Garlan, D.: Software architecture: A travelogue. In: Proceedings on the of Future of Software Engineering. FOSE 2014, pp. 29–39. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2014)
  27. Glass, R., Vessey, I., Ramesh, V.: Research in software engineering: an analysis of the literature. Inf. Softw. Technol. 44(8), 491–506 (2002)
    Article Google Scholar
  28. Hoda, R., Salleh, N., Grundy, J.: The rise and evolution of agile software development. IEEE Softw. 35(5), 58–63 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2018.290111318
    Article Google Scholar
  29. Höfer, A., Tichy, W.F.: Status of Empirical Research in Software Engineering, pp. 10–19. Springer, Berlin (2007)
    Google Scholar
  30. Hofmeister, C., Kruchten, P., Nord, R.L., Obbink, H., Ran, A., America, P.: A general model of software architecture design derived from five industrial approaches. J. Syst. Softw. 80(1), 106–126 (2007)
    Article Google Scholar
  31. Hofmeister, C., Nord, R., Soni, D.: Applied Software Architecture, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, London (1999)
    Google Scholar
  32. Hofmeister, C., Nord, R.L., Soni, D.: Global analysis: moving from software requirements specification to structural views of the software architecture. IEE Proc. Softw. 152(4), 187–197 (2005)
    Article Google Scholar
  33. IEEE: Ansi/IEEE 1471-2000-IEEE recommended practice for architectural description for software-intensive systems (2018). https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/1471-2000.html
  34. Ingole, S., Kumar, A., Prusti, D., Rath, S.K.: Service-based credit card fraud detection using oracle SOA suite. SN Comput. Sci. 2(3), 161 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-021-00539-2
    Article Google Scholar
  35. Josuttis, N.: Soa in Practice: The Art of Distributed System Design. O’Reilly Media, Inc. (2007)
  36. Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W., Chervany, N.L.: Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Q. 23(2), 183–213 (1999)
    Article Google Scholar
  37. Khalid, M.H., Murtaza, M., Habbal, M.: Study of security and privacy issues in internet of things. In: 2020 5th International Conference on Innovative Technologies in Intelligent Systems and Industrial Applications (CITISIA), pp. 1–5 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/CITISIA50690.2020.9371828
  38. Kitchenham, B.A., Pfleeger, S.L.: Personal Opinion Surveys, pp. 63–92. Springer, London (2008)
    Google Scholar
  39. Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc, Boston (2004)
    Google Scholar
  40. Kruchten, P.: Software architecture and agile software development: a clash of two cultures? In: 2010 ACM/IEEE 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 497–498 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1810295.1810448
  41. Kruchten, P., Capilla, R., Dueñas, J.C.: The decision view’s role in software architecture practice. IEEE Softw. 26(2), 36–42 (2009)
  42. Kruchten, P., Obbink, H., Stafford, J.: The past, present, and future for software architecture. IEEE Softw. 23(2), 22–30 (2006)
    Article Google Scholar
  43. Kruchten, P.B.: The 4+1 view model of architecture. IEEE Softw. 12(6), 42–50 (1995)
    Article Google Scholar
  44. Kurniawan, N.B., Bandung, Y., Yustianto, P.: Services computing systems engineering framework: a proposition and evaluation through soa principles and analysis model. IEEE Syst. J. 14(3), 3105–3116 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2019.2939433
    Article Google Scholar
  45. Lee, D., Park, J., Ahn, J.: On the explanation of factors affecting e-commerce adoption. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Conference on Information Systems, pp. 109–120 (2001)
  46. Lewis, J., Fowler, M.: Microservices. https://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html (2014). Accessed 15 May 2021
  47. Masood, T., Cherifi, C.B., Moalla, N.: A machine learning approach for performance-oriented decision support in service-oriented architectures. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 56(2), 255–277 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-020-00617-6
    Article Google Scholar
  48. Medvidovic, N., Taylor, R.N.: A classification and comparison framework for software architecture description languages. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 26(1), 70–93 (2000)
    Article Google Scholar
  49. Mendoza-Pitti, L., Calderón-Gómez, H., Vargas-Lombardo, M., Gómez-Pulido, J.M., Castillo-Sequera, J.L.: Towards a service-oriented architecture for the energy efficiency of buildings: a systematic review. IEEE Access 9, 26119–26137 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3057543
    Article Google Scholar
  50. Mora, M.: Descripción del Método de Investigación Conceptual: Tipo Conductual o Tipo Diseño. Tech. Rep. Reporte Técnico 2009-3.5, Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes (2009)
  51. Nadareishvili, I., Mitra, R., McLarty, M., Amundsen, M.: Microservice Architecture: Aligning Principles, Practices, and Culture, 1st edn. O’Reilly Media, Inc. (2016)
  52. Papazoglou, M.P.: Service -oriented computing: Concepts, characteristics and directions. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering, WISE ’03, pp. 3. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2003). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=960322.960404
  53. Pautasso, C., Zimmermann, O., Amundsen, M., Lewis, J., Josuttis, N.: Microservices in practice, part 1: reality check and service design. IEEE Softw. 34(1), 91–98 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2017.24
    Article Google Scholar
  54. Petriu, D.C., Happe, J.: Introduction to the theme issue on models for quality of software architecture. Softw. Syst. Model. 13(4), 1237–1238 (2014)
    Article Google Scholar
  55. Pfleeger, S.L., Kitchenham, B.A.: Principles of survey research: part 1: turning lemons into lemonade. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 26(6), 16–18 (2001)
    Article Google Scholar
  56. Péraire, C., Edwards, M., A., F., Mancin, E., Carroll, K.: The IBM Rational Unified Process for System Z, pp. 1-252. IBM Rational Software, Red Books (2007)
  57. Reyes-Delgado, P.Y., Duran-Limon, H.A., Mora, M., C., R.M.L.: Socam method: Complementary documents. https://github.com/hduran-limon/SOCAM (2021)
  58. Reyes-Delgado, P.Y., Mora, M., Duran-Limon, H.A., Rodriguez-Martine, L.C., O’Connor, R.V., Mendoza-Gonzalez, R.: The strengths and weaknesses of software architecture design in the rup, msf, mbase and rup-soa methodologies: a conceptual review. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 47, 24–41 (2016)
  59. Rumez, M., Grimm, D., Kriesten, R., Sax, E.: An overview of automotive service-oriented architectures and implications for security countermeasures. IEEE Access 8, 221852–221870 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3043070
    Article Google Scholar
  60. Sanchez, E.S., Clemente, P.J., Conejero, J.M., Prieto, A.E.: Business process execution from the alignment between business processes and web services: a semantic and model-driven modernization process. IEEE Access 8, 93346–93368 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2993883
    Article Google Scholar
  61. Selic, B.: Model-driven development: Its essence and opportunities. In: Proceedings of the Ninth IEEE International Symposium on Object and Component-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing, ISORC ’06, pp. 313–319. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2006). https://doi.org/10.1109/ISORC.2006.54
  62. Selic, B.: Specifying dynamic software system architectures. Softw. Syst. Model. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-021-00875-0
    Article Google Scholar
  63. Sheskin, D.J.: Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures, 4th edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, London (2007)
    MATH Google Scholar
  64. Sievi-Korte, O., Richardson, I., Beecham, S.: Software architecture design in global software development: an empirical study. J. Syst. Softw. 158, 110400 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.110400
    Article Google Scholar
  65. Singh, R.: Microservice orchestration vs choreography. https://bit.ly/3xD4ZvC (2019). Accessed 15 May 2021
  66. Center for Software Engineering, U.o.S.C.: Guidelines for model-based (system) architecting and software engineering (mbase) (2003)
  67. Valderas, P., Torres, V., Pelochano, V.: Supporting a hybrid composition of microservices. The eucaliptool platform. J. Softw. Eng. Res. Dev. 8, 1:1-1:14 (2020). https://doi.org/10.5753/jserd.2020.457
    Article Google Scholar
  68. Valerdi, R., Madachy, R.: Impact and contributions of mbase on software engineering graduate courses. J. Syst. Softw. 80(8), 1185–1190 (2007)
    Article Google Scholar
  69. W3C: Simple object access protocol soap 1.1. http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP (2019). http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP
  70. Wang, X., Conboy, K., Cawley, O.: Leagile software development: an experience report analysis of the application of lean approaches in agile software development. J. Syst. Softw. 85(6), 1287–1299 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.01.061. (Special Issue: Agile Development)
    Article Google Scholar
  71. Wang, Y., Li, Q., Yang, Z.: Functional requirements analysis of militia emergency communication equipment based on soa architecture. In: 2021 Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications Technology and Computer Science (ACCTCS), pp. 310–314 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCTCS52002.2021.00068
  72. Waseem, M., Liang, P., Shahin, M.: A systematic mapping study on microservices architecture in devops. J. Syst. Softw. 170, 110798 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.110798
    Article Google Scholar
  73. Weinreich, R., Buchgeher, G.: Towards supporting the software architecture life cycle. J. Syst. Softw. 85(3), 546–561 (2012)
    Article Google Scholar
  74. Wohlin, C., Höst, M., Henningsson, K.: Empirical Research Methods in Software Engineering, pp. 7–23. Springer, Berlin (2003)
    Book Google Scholar
  75. Wojcik, R., Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Clements, P., Merson, P., Nord, R., Wood, B.: Attribute-Driven Design (ADD), Version 2.0. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2006-TR-023, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon Univ (2006)
  76. Wood, G.: A Practical Example of Applying Attribute-Driven Design (ADD), Version 2.0. Tech. Rep. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2007-TR-005, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon Univ (2007)
  77. Yang, C., Liang, P., Avgeriou, P.: A systematic mapping study on the combination of software architecture and agile development. J. Syst. Softw. 111, 157–184 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.09.028
    Article Google Scholar
  78. Zikmund, W.: Business Research Methods. Dryden (1997)
  79. Zimmermann, O.: Microservices tenets. Comput. Sci. 32(34), 301–310 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00450-016-0337-0
    Article Google Scholar

Download references