%0 Conference Paper %1 menasce_qos_2010 %A Menasce, Daniel A. %A Sousa, João P. %A Malek, Sam %A Gomaa, Hassan %B Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Autonomic computing %C New York, NY, USA %D 2010 %I ACM %K Service architecture architecture; architectures; autonomic computing; of optimization oriented patterns; quality service; software %P 195--204 %R 10.1145/1809049.1809084 %T Qos architectural patterns for self-architecting software systems %U http://0-doi.acm.org.innopac.up.ac.za/10.1145/1809049.1809084 %@ 978-1-4503-0074-2

@inproceedings{menasce_qos_2010, added-at = {2013-02-28T11:13:35.000+0100}, address = {New York, {NY}, {USA}}, author = {Menasce, Daniel A. and Sousa, Jo{\~a}o P. and Malek, Sam and Gomaa, Hassan}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2b1eec9cee2d6826146992ffeb283ad1a/fritzsolms}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Autonomic computing}}, doi = {10.1145/1809049.1809084}, interhash = {9f5817608d11d92a11f4ca5d3f3dcf63}, intrahash = {b1eec9cee2d6826146992ffeb283ad1a}, isbn = {978-1-4503-0074-2}, keywords = {Service architecture architecture; architectures; autonomic computing; of optimization oriented patterns; quality service; software}, pages = {195--204}, publisher = {{ACM}}, review = {{SUMMARY} {(Fritz):} Excellent paper!! Summary: Dynamical tuning a base architecture (focus on {SOA)} for better {QoS} provision by automatically selecting architectural components/patterns in order to implement architectural strategies which concretely address specific quality requirements. For example, one can dynamically select load balancing, encryption, active redundency components (patterns) to adress scalability, security, performance, ... For each component they specify - a structural view for the component using {xADL} which provides a component-connector decomposition of the component, - the behaviour of the architectural component using Finite State Processes {(FSP)} - a set of quality metrics for the component which are mathematical equation for the effect of the component on different qualities (e.g. performance, reliability, security, ...) - it is hese metrics which are also used in the utility function which is optimized in the context of tuning the architecture with different architectural components. They then dymanically tune the architecture (adding architectural components realizing different architectural strategies) a domain-expert-specified utility function which effectively specifies the {QoS} trade-off preferences. A note on terminology: Some literature and we too have used architectural patterns for core infrastructural elements like layering, pipes and filters, blackboard, ... Many authors use the term "architectural styles" for {this.Note} that they do not alter the architectural styles (e.g. pipes and filters, layering, blackboard, ...). The latter are contained within a fixed base architecture. What they call architectural patterns are architectural components which are used to concretely implement what we call architectural strategies or tactics (load blancing, resource pooling, ...). The only other alternative approach I have seen addressing explicitly the quality requirements in model-driven development is that of automatically selecting aspects (effectively interceptors woven across a domain of services) which address these quality requirements. This approach is, in my opinion, less flexible than the architectural patterns approach.}, series = {{{ICAC} '10}}, timestamp = {2013-02-28T11:13:58.000+0100}, title = {{Qos architectural patterns for self-architecting software systems}}, url = {http://0-doi.acm.org.innopac.up.ac.za/10.1145/1809049.1809084}, year = 2010 }