skip to main content
10.1145/1148493.1148509acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessoftvisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Visualization of areas of interest in software architecture diagrams

Published:04 September 2006Publication History

ABSTRACT

Understanding complex software systems requires getting insight in how system properties, such as performance, trust, reliability, or structural attributes, correspond to the system architecture. Such properties can be seen as defining several 'areas of interest' over the system architecture. We visualize areas of interest atop of system architecture diagrams using a new technique that minimizes visual clutter for multiple, overlapping areas for large diagrams, yet preserves the diagram layout familiar to designers. We illustrate our proposed techniques on several UML diagrams of complex, real-world systems.

References

  1. Arya, S., Mount, D., Netanyahu, N., Silverman, R., and Wu, Y. 1998. An optimal algorithm for approximate nearest neighbor searching. J. of the ACM 45, 891--923. www.cs.umd.edu/mount/ANN. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Balzer, M., and Deussen, O. 2005. Exploring relations within software systems using treemap enhanced hierarchical graphs. In Proc. VISSOFT, IEEE Press, 89--94. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bondarev, E., Chaudron, M., and De With, P. 2006, to appear. A process for resolving performance trade-offs in component-based architectures. In Proc. 9th Intl. Symposium of Component-Based Software Engineering, Springer LNCS. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Borland. 2005. Together. www.borland.com/together.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Byelas, H., and Telea, A. 2006. Visualization of areas of interest in component-based architectures. In Proc. EUROMICRO SEAA - Component-Based Software Engineering, IEEE Press. www.win.tue.nl/alext/ALEX/PAPERS/EUROMICRO06/paper.pdf. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Costa, L., and Cesar, R. 2001. Shape Analysis and Classification: Theory and Practice. CRC Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Dunke, R., and Schmietendorf, A. 2000. Possibilities of the description and evaluation of software components. Metrics News 5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Fenton, N., and Pfleeger, S. 1998. Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Pracical Approach. Chapman&Hall. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Ferenc, R., Beszédes, A., Tarkiainen, M., and Gyimóthy, T. 2002. Columbus - reverse engineering tool and schema for c++. In Proc. ICSM, IEEE Press, 172--181. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Gansner, E., and North, S. 2000. An open graph visualization system and its applications to software engineering. Software: Practice&Experience 30, 11, 1203--1233. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Gill, N., and Grover, P. 2003. Component-based measurement: A few useful guidelines. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Goulao, M., and Abreu, F. 2004. Formalizing metrics for COTS. In Proc. MPEC'04, Edimburgh.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. IBM. 2005. Rational Rose. www.306.ibm.com/software/rational.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. ITEA. 2002. ROBOCOP: A robust open component-based software architecture for configurable devices. Public document, version 1.0. available at www.hitech-projects.com/euprojects/robocop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. ITEA. 2005. Trust4All project. www.win.tue.nl/trust4all.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. LaQuso. 2006. Laboratory for quality of software. Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands. www.laquso.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Marcus, A., Fend, L., and Maletic, J. I. 2003. 3d representations for software visualization. In Proc. ACM SoftVis, 27--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Möller, A., Akerholm, M., Federiksson, J., and Nolin, M. 2004. Evaluation of component technologies with respect to industrial requirements. In Proc. EUROMICRO'04, IEEE Press, 56--63. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Rilling, J., and Mudur, S. P. 2002. On the use of metaballs to visually map code structures and analysis results onto 3d space. In Proc. WCRE, IEEE Press, 299--306. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Shewchuk, J. R. 1996. Triangle: Engineering a 2d quality mesh generator and delaunay triangulator. In Proc. Applied Computational Geometry, ACM Press, 124--133. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Sprenger, T., Brunella, R., and Gross, M. 2000. Hblob: A hierarchical clustering method using implicit surfaces. In Proc. Visualization, IEEE Press, 61--68. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Taubin, G. 2000. Geometric signal processing on polygonal meshes. In EUROGRAPHICS STAR Reports.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Telea, A., and van Wijk, J. J. 2002. An augmented fast marching method for computing skeletons and centerlines. In Proc. VisSym, IEEE Press, 151--158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Termeer, M., Lange, C., Telea, A., and Chaudron, M. 2005. Visual exploration of combined architectural and metric information. In Proc. VISSOFT, IEEE Press, 21--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Tilley, S., Wong, K., Storey, M., and Müller, H. 1994. Programmable reverse engineering. Intl. J. Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 4, 4, 501--520.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Voinea, L., and Telea, A. 2004. A framework for interactive visualization of component-based software. In Proc. EUROMICRO SEAA - Component-Based Software Engineering, IEEE Press, 567--574. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Woo, M., Neider, J., Davis, T., and Shreiner, D. 2001. OpenGL Programming Guide, 3rd edition. Addison-Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Wust, J. 2005. SDMetrics: The software design metrics tool for UML. www.sdmetrics.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Visualization of areas of interest in software architecture diagrams

        Recommendations

        Reviews

        Vladan Jovanovic

        In the design of software architecture, it is often necessary to indicate specific areas of interest (AOI) on complex diagrams. This paper presents a method to highlight AOI. An intended application is to support unified modeling language (UML) diagrams, which are now a prevalent way of visually communicating software architecture information, and a place where real-world requirements demand the consideration of various AOI. Some examples of important classes of AOI are nonfunctional requirements, metrics defined, work allocations and other viewpoints, and other overlays on design elements. The authors have devised original methods for visually highlighting AOI, and demonstrate their viability in experiments with real tools on real design examples. AOI have particular significance when designers desire to highlight them, while preserving the structural properties and layouts of their designs. Various design tools had coped with marking AOI by using textual annotations, or by displaying only AOI projections from diagrams. Both approaches are of limited value when designers desire to see them together. Previous methods of highlighting AOI as smooth shapes around their respective elements, based on computing the isosurfaces of some potential function or distance field, were computationally expensive, and could not be used in the real-time redrawing of diagrams during explorations. In this paper, the authors present the results of their research and experimentation with an original method based on the outer skeleton technique. The outer skeleton technique improves and complements their recent work on inner skeletons. The method uses OpenGL for the effective real-time rendering of AOI, preserving the layouts of diagrams so that they can be used during revisions and reviews of designs. This research is of interest to designers, tool developers, and advanced software engineering students. Online Computing Reviews Service

        Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

        Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SoftVis '06: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Software visualization
          September 2006
          199 pages
          ISBN:1595934642
          DOI:10.1145/1148493

          Copyright © 2006 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 4 September 2006

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • Article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate20of65submissions,31%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader