Many languages for modeling various aspects of software systems’ architectures have been proposed over the past three decades. In the late 1990s, we provided the first systematic foundation for understanding, classifying, and comparing the quickly emerging architecture description languages (ADLs). This culminated in a 2000 IEEE TSE publication, which has subsequently been referenced widely. In this paper, we revisit the 2000 framework, consider how it influenced a foundational study of the suitability of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) as an ADL and influenced the development of an extensible ADL (xADL) with a set of highly innovative features. We show how further work with modeling efforts led to a new and deeper understanding of software architecture itself. We conclude by analyzing a series of recent developments that have reshaped the software architecture landscape, posing new questions about the nature of architecture description.

Research over the past decade has revealed that modeling software architecture at the level of components and connectors is useful in a growing variety of contexts. This has led to the development of a plethora of notations for representing software architectures, each focusing on different aspects of the systems being modeled. In general, these notations have been developed without regard to reuse or extension. This makes the effort in adapting an existing notation to a new purpose commensurate with developing a new notation from scratch. To address this problem, we have developed an approach that allows for the rapid construction of new architecture description languages (ADLs). Our approach is unique because it encapsulates ADL features in modules that are composed to form ADLs. We achieve this by leveraging the extension mechanisms provided by XML and XML schemas. We have defined a set of generic, reusable ADL modules called xADL 2.0, useful as an ADL by itself, but also extensible to support new applications and domains. To support this extensibility, we have developed a set of reflective syntax-based tools that adapt to language changes automatically, as well as several semantically-aware tools that provide support for advanced features of xADL 2.0. We demonstrate the effectiveness, scalability, and flexibility of our approach through a diverse set of experiences. First, our approach has been applied in industrial contexts, modeling software architectures for aircraft software and spacecraft systems. Second, we show how xADL 2.0 can be extended to support the modeling features found in two different representations for modeling product-line architectures. Finally, we show how our infrastructure has been used to support its own development. The technical contribution of our infrastructure is augmented by several research contributions: the first decomposition of an architecture description language into modules, insights about how to develop new language modules and a process for integrating them, and insights about the roles of different kinds of tools in a modular ADL-based infrastructure.

Applications built in a strongly decoupled, event-based interaction style have many commendable characteristics, including ease of dynamic configuration, accommodation of platform heterogeneity, and ease of distribution over a network. It is not always easy to humanly grasp the dynamic behavior of such applications, since many threads are active and events are asynchronously (and profusely) transmitted. We present a set of requirements for an aid to assist in the human understanding and exploration of the behavior of such applications through the incremental refinement of rules for determining causality relationships between messages sent among components. A prototype tool is presented, indicating one viable approach to meeting these requirements. Experience with the tool reinforces some of the requirements and indicates others.

Software architectures promote development focused on modular functional building blocks (components), their interconnections (configurations), and their interactions (connectors). Since architecture-level components often contain complex functionality, it is reasonable to expect that their interactions will be complex as well. Middleware technologies such as CORBA, COM, and RMI provide a set of predefined services for enabling component composition and interaction. However, the potential role of such services in the implementations of software architectures is not well understood. In practice, middleware can resolve various types of component heterogeneity — across platform and language boundaries, for instance — but also can induce unwanted architectural constraints on application development. We present an approach in which components communicate through architecture-level software connectors that are implemented using middleware. This approach preserves the properties of the architecture-level connectors while leveraging the beneficial capabilities of the underlying middleware. We have implemented this approach in the context of a component- and message-based architectural style called C2 and demonstrated its utility in the context of several diverse applications. We argue that our approach provides a systematic and reasonable way to bridge the gap between architecture-level connectors and implementation-level middleware packages.

Research and experimentation in software architectures over the past decade have yielded a plethora of software architecture description languages (ADLs). Continuing innovation indicates that it is reasonable to expect more new ADLs, or at least ADL features. This research process is impeded by the difficulty and cost associated with developing new notations. An architect in need of a unique set of modeling features must either develop a new architecture description language from scratch or undertake the daunting task of modifying an existing language. In either case, it is unavoidable that a significant effort will be expended in building or adapting tools to support the language. To remedy this situation, we have developed an infrastructure for the rapid development of new architecture description languages. Key aspects of the infrastructure are its XML-based modular extension mechanism, its base set of reusable and customizable architectural modeling constructs, and its equally important set of flexible support tools. This paper introduces the infrastructure and demonstrates its value in the context of several real-world applications.

Software architecture research focuses on models of software architectures as specified in architecture description languages (ADLs). As research progresses in specific areas of software architectures, more and more architectural information is created. Ideally, this information can be stored in the model. An extensible modeling language is crucial to experimenting with and building tools for novel modeling constructs that arise from evolving research. Traditional ADLs typically support a small set of modeling constructs very well, but adapt to others poorly. XML provides an ideal platform upon which to develop an extensible modeling language for software architectures. Previous XML-based ADLs successfully leveraged XML's large base of off-the-shelf tool support, but did not take advantage of its extensibility. To give software architecture researchers more freedom to explore new possibilities and modeling techniques, while maximizing reuse of tools and modeling constructs, we have developed xADL 2.0, a highly extensible XML-based ADL. xADL 2.0 supports run-time and design time modeling, architecture configuration management and model-based system instantiation. Additionally, xADL 2.0 has a set of extensible infrastructure tools that support the creation, manipulation, and sharing of xADL 2.0 documents.

Software architectures promote development focused on modular building blocks and their interconnections. Since architecture-level components often contain complex functionality, it is reasonable to expect that their interactions will also be complex. Modeling and implementing software connectors thus becomes a key aspect of architecture-based development. Software interconnection and middleware technologies such as RMI, CORBA, ILU, and ActiveX provide a valuable service in building applications from components. The relation of such services to software connectors in the context of software architectures, however, is not well understood. To understand the tradeoffs among these technologies with respect to architectures, we have evaluated several off-the-shelf middleware technologies and identified key techniques for utilizing them in implementing software connectors. Our platform for investigation was C2, a component- and message-based architectural style. By encapsulating middleware functionality within software connectors, we have coupled C2's existing benefits such as component interchangeability, substrate independence and structural guidance with new capabilities of multi-lingual, multi-process and distributed application development in a manner that is transparent to architects.