Software Architecture
Note:
Please do in text reference while using direct quotation .
There is no other resource required for this essay piece, only source is the two readings provided by the course. Please beware and answer the questions mention in the assignment sheet within discommission and critical analysis section of the essay. Thank you for your help.
Please writing the on a Distinction level. Thank you.
Assignment Summary
In this assignment, you can examine several seminal papers in the development of software architecture. The first, written 35 years ago by David Parnas, is one of the earliest works related to software architecture. The second, written by Mary Shaw 17 years after Parnas’s paper lays the groundwork for the ‘new’ field of software architecture.
Learning Objectives
After completing this assignment, students will
• Have an appreciation for some of the early research work in Software Architecture; and,
• Understand the history of how software architecture has evolved over time.
Components
The assignment should be a 3-page essay based on the provided format starting with a very brief abstract followed by sections of introduction, discussion, critical analysis and conclusion. You should address the following points in your discussion and critical analysis part:
• What are the connections between Shaw’s observations and those that Parnas made? How does Shaw’s work build on that of Parnas? How does Shaw’s work fill in or correct some of the things that Parnas missed in his work?
•
• What are the most relevant points that Shaw makes in relation to modern systems and software architecture?
•
• What are the most significant points that Shaw did not anticipate and/or address (and why)?
•
• Are the points that Shaw and Parnas did not address addressed today (if so, how)? Which problems still remain open?
•
• Shaw discusses patterns and higher levels of abstraction. What are the patterns that you can see in the evolution of programming and software architecture?
References
[Par72] David L. Parnas. “On the Criteria to be Used on Decomposing Systems into Modules,” Communications of the ACM, 15(12):1053-1058, 1972.
[Shaw89] Mary Shaw. “Larger Scale Systems Require Higher-Level Abstractions,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Software Specifications and Design, published
Marking Scheme
Overall Mechanics (10pts)
• Very few mistakes in punctuation and grammar. (5pts)
• All external sources cited where appropriate. (5pts)
Abstract (10pts)
• Limit the abstract fewer than 80 words. (5pts)
• Purposes and results are clearly addressed in the abstract. (5pts)
Introduction (15pts)
• Concise summary includes most important information from the remainder of the paper. (5pts)
• Clear and to the point. (5pts)
• Clear and balanced structure of the introduction. (5pts)
Discussion (20pts)
• Exceptional grasp of what Parnas got right in his works (5pts)
• Exceptional grasp of what Shaw got right in her works (5pts)
• Complete list of important factors missed by Parnas and Shaw (10pts)
Critical Analysis (25pts)
• Complete examination of the relationship of the two papers and recent concepts. (5pts)
• Rationale supported with real-world examples. (10pts)
• Accurate discussion of open issues (10pts)
?
Conclusions (20pts)
?
• Includes good insights into the future of software architecture. (5pts)
• Includes good ties to course concepts (5pts)
• Appropriately summarizes arguments made in the rest of the paper (5pts)
• Demonstrates clear learning and understanding (5pts)
