![]() ![]() Practitioners still believe that AC would be useful in supporting several of the software development activities such as auditing, evolution and ensuring quality attributes. These barriers are: 1) Difficulty in quantifying architectural inconsistency effects, and thus justifying the allocation of resources to fix them to senior management, 2) The near invisibility of architectural inconsistency to customers, 3) Practitioners’ reluctance towards fixing architectural inconsistencies, and 4) Practitioners perception that huge effort is required to map the system to the architecture when using more formal AC approaches and tools. The study reveals that many practitioners apply informal AC approaches as there are barriers for adopting more formal and explicit approaches. We also assess current commercial AC tool offerings in terms of these perceived needs. Our goal is to identify 1) any practises that the companies these architects work for, currently undertake to achieve AC 2) any barriers to undertaking explicit AC approaches in these companies 3) software development situations where practitioners perceive AC approaches would be useful, and 4) AC tool needs, as perceived by practitioners. In this paper, we empirically examine the state of practice with respect to Architecture Consistency, through interviews with nineteen experienced software engineers. Several AC approaches and tools have been proposed and empirically evaluated, suggesting favourable results. Architecture Consistency (AC) aims to align implemented systems with their intended architectures. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |