Architecture Review - Explore the Science & Experts | ideXlab

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Architecture Review

The Experts below are selected from a list of 68109 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Francesco Battaglia – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • La Conclusione Del Processo Di Riforma Della Peacebuilding Architecture: L’Elaborazione Del Concetto Di ‘Sustaining Peace’ Nell’Ottica Di Una Trasformazione Del Post-Conflict Peacebuilding in Pre-Emptive Peacebuilding (The Peacebuilding Architecture
    , 2016
    Co-Authors: Francesco Battaglia

    Abstract:

    Italian Abstract: L’articolo prende in esame la riforma del peacebuilding e, in particolare, l’introduzione del principio di “sustaining peace” nell’ottica di una trasformazione del “post-conflict peacebuilding” in “pre-emptive peacebuilding”.English Abstract: The paper is about the peacebuilding Architecture Review. It introduced the principle of “peace-sustaining” which should change current post-conflict peacebuilding to preventive peacebuilding.

  • la conclusione del processo di riforma della peacebuilding Architecture l elaborazione del concetto di sustaining peace nell ottica di una trasformazione del post conflict peacebuilding in pre emptive peacebuilding the peacebuilding Architecture revi
    , 2016
    Co-Authors: Francesco Battaglia

    Abstract:

    Italian Abstract: L’articolo prende in esame la riforma del peacebuilding e, in particolare, l’introduzione del principio di “sustaining peace” nell’ottica di una trasformazione del “post-conflict peacebuilding” in “pre-emptive peacebuilding”.English Abstract: The paper is about the peacebuilding Architecture Review. It introduced the principle of “peace-sustaining” which should change current post-conflict peacebuilding to preventive peacebuilding.

Yuanfang Cai – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • CSEE&T – Introducing tool-supported Architecture Review into software design education
    2013 26th International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T), 2013
    Co-Authors: Yuanfang Cai, Rick Kazman, Ciera Jaspan, Jonathan Aldrich

    Abstract:

    While modularity is highly regarded as an important quality of software, it poses an educational dilemma: the true value of modularity is realized only as software evolves, but student homework, assignments and labs, once completed, seldom evolve. In addition, students seldom receive feedback regarding the modularity and evolvability of their designs. Prior work has shown that it is extremely easy for students and junior developers to introduce extra dependencies in their programs. In this paper, we report on a first experiment applying a tool-supported Architecture Review process in a software design class. To scientifically address this education problem, our first objective is to advance our understanding of why students make these modularity mistakes, and how the mistakes can be corrected. We propose tool-guided Architecture Review so that modularity problems in students’ implementation can be revealed and their consequences can be assessed against possible change scenarios. Our pilot study shows that even students who understand the importance of modularity and have excellent programming skills may introduce additional harmful dependencies in their implementations. Furthermore, it is hard for them to detect the existence of these dependencies on their own. Our pilot study also showed that students need more formal training in architectural Review to effectively detect and analyze these problems.

  • introducing tool supported Architecture Review into software design education
    Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, 2013
    Co-Authors: Yuanfang Cai, Rick Kazman, Ciera Jaspan, Jonathan Aldrich

    Abstract:

    While modularity is highly regarded as an important quality of software, it poses an educational dilemma: the true value of modularity is realized only as software evolves, but student homework, assignments and labs, once completed, seldom evolve. In addition, students seldom receive feedback regarding the modularity and evolvability of their designs. Prior work has shown that it is extremely easy for students and junior developers to introduce extra dependencies in their programs. In this paper, we report on a first experiment applying a tool-supported Architecture Review process in a software design class. To scientifically address this education problem, our first objective is to advance our understanding of why students make these modularity mistakes, and how the mistakes can be corrected. We propose tool-guided Architecture Review so that modularity problems in students’ implementation can be revealed and their consequences can be assessed against possible change scenarios. Our pilot study shows that even students who understand the importance of modularity and have excellent programming skills may introduce additional harmful dependencies in their implementations. Furthermore, it is hard for them to detect the existence of these dependencies on their own. Our pilot study also showed that students need more formal training in architectural Review to effectively detect and analyze these problems.

  • ICGSE – Experience with a New Architecture Review Process Using a Globally Distributed Architecture Review Team
    2010 5th IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering, 2010
    Co-Authors: Flávio P. Duarte, Clarissa Cortes Pires, Carlos A. De Souza, Johannes P. Ros, Rosa M. M. Leão, Edmundo De Souza E Silva, Julius C. B. Leite, Vittorio Cortellessa, Daniel Mosse, Yuanfang Cai

    Abstract:

    We present in this paper our experience with applying a new Architecture Review process that uses a globally distributed Review team to assess Architecture risk of a complex mission critical system. The new Architecture Review process uses aspects of the checklist-based Architecture Review process and the operational scenario-based Architecture Review process. We present the Architecture Review process approach, a summary of the Architecture under Review and the detailed analysis of the most important operational scenarios. We conclude by presenting a summary of the lessons we learned using the new process.

Simon Field – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Service Architecture Review Method
    , 2012
    Co-Authors: Simon Field

    Abstract:

    It involves collective development of an evaluation context, creating a set of service scenarios related to a Service Quality Model, and documenting the interest in these of the various service stakeholders. The participants also assess the impact in the event that the chosen service design fails to satisfactorily deliver each scenario. This context sets the scene for solution design, but does not in any way dictate the service design methods used. The Review method is not a design method, but rather a method for design evaluation that can complement any service design method. It provides particular insights when there are several competing service designs, the strengths and weaknesses of which need to be explored.

  • IESS – Can Software Architecture Review Methods Apply to Service Design
    Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 2010
    Co-Authors: Simon Field

    Abstract:

    Service design is a relatively new discipline, perhaps considered today to be more art than science. A chosen design may affect multiple stakeholders, and its impact may vary across multiple service attributes. It is often therefore difficult to determine whether one service design is preferable to another. This paper presents a Review method derived from those adopted by software architects to evaluate competing software Architectures. It suggests that the domain of service design shares some significant characteristics with that of software solution Architecture, and proposes the adaptation and application of evaluation and Review methods that have proved successful in the software solution Architecture domain.