Logo PTI
Polish Information Processing Society
Logo FedCSIS

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 23

Communication Papers of the 2020 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems

Capturing the Evolution of Service-oriented Systems with Architectural Decisions


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2020F177

Citation: Communication Papers of the 2020 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 23, pages 6776 ()

Full text

Abstract. Software evolution is becoming ever more important. SOA is nowadays a well-established and popular software technology. Because of its properties, such as loose-coupling between services and their reconfigurable composition, SOA is an architecture that is particularly suitable for rapidly evolving systems. However, the research on the evolution methodologies for SOA systems is rather scarce. We present a model called MAD4SOA, developed in order to support and capture the evolution of service-oriented systems. Architectural decisions are the first class entities that represent the evolution of a serviceoriented system. They are accompanied by a set of relations between model entities and formal integrity constraints. The suitability of the MAD4SOA model has been validated using the real-world example of a system operated in a clearing house company.


  1. M. Bell, “SOA Modeling Patterns for Service-oriented Discovery and Analysis,” Wiley and Sons, 2010.
  2. M. Ali Babar, et al.,“Architecture knowledge management. Theory and Practice,” Springer – Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2009.
  3. J. Tyree, A. Akerman, “Architecture Decisions: Demystifying Architecture,” IEEE Software, vol. 22, iss. 2, 2005, pp. 19–27.
  4. ISO/IEC, “ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011: Systems and software engineering – Architecture description,” ISO/IEC, 2011.
  5. A. Jansen, J. Bosch, “Software Architecture as a Set of Architectural Design Decisions,” 5thWorking IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, 2005, pp. 19–27.
  6. O. Zimmermann, et al., “Managing architectural decision models with dependency relations, integrity constraints, and production rules,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 82, no. 8, 2009, pp. 1249–1267.
  7. P. Kruchten, P. Lago, H. van Vliet, “Building up and reasoning about architectural knowledge,” QoSA, 2006.
  8. P. Kruchten, “An Ontology of Architectural Design Decisions,” Proc. of 2nd Groningen Workshop on Software Variability Management, 2004, pp. 54–61.
  9. The Open Group, “The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF®) Version 9.1,” The Open Group, http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/ 2018.
  10. A. Zalewski, S. Kijas, D. Sokołowska, “Capturing Architecture Evolution with Maps of Architectural Decisions 2.0,” ECSA 2011 Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6903, 2011, pp. 83–96.
  11. N. B. Harrison, P. Avgeriou, U. Zdun, “Using Patterns to Capture Architectural Decisions,” IEEE Software, vol. 24, no. 4, 2007, pp. 38–45.
  12. M. Shahina, P. Lianga, M. Ali Babar, “A systematic review of software architecture visualization techniques,” The Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 94, 2014, pp. 161–185.
  13. T. Erl, “Service-Oriented Architecture: Concepts, Technology, and Design, Upper Saddle River,” Prentice Hall PTR, 2015.
  14. A. Arsanjani, S. Ghosh, A. Allam, T. Abdollah, S. Ganapathy, K. Holley, “SOMA: A method for developing service–oriented solutions,” IBM Systems Journal, vol. 47, no. 3, 2008, pp. 377–396.
  15. M. P. Papazoglou, W. J. van den Heuvel, “Service-oriented design and development methodology, International Journal of Web Engineering and Technology,” IJWET, 2006.
  16. R. Capilla, F. Nava, J. C. Dueñas, “Modeling and Documenting the Evolution of Architectural Design Decisions,” Proc. 2nd Workshop Sharing and Reusing Architectural Knowledge Architecture, 2007.
  17. R. Capilla, O. Zimmermann, U. Zdun, P. Avgeriou, J. M. Küster, “An Enhanced Architectural Knowledge Metamodel Linking Architectural Design Decisions to other Artifacts in the Software Engineering Lifecycle,” ECSA 2011 Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6903, 2011, pp. 303–318.
  18. O. Zimmermann, J. Grundler, S. Tai, F. Leymann, “Architectural Decisions and Patterns for Transactional Workflows in SOA,” ICSOC 2007 Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4749, 2007, pp. 81–93.
  19. O. Zimmermann, “Architectural Decisions as Reusable Design Assets,” IEEE Software, vol. 28, 2011, pp. 64–69.
  20. M. Nowak, C. Pautasso, O. Zimmermann, “Architectural decision modeling with reuse: challenges and opportunities,” Proceedings of the 2010 ICSE Workshop on Sharing and Reusing Architectural Knowledge, 2010, pp. 13–20.
  21. C. Pautasso, O. Zimmermann, F. Leymann, “Restful web services vs. "big"’ web services: making the right architectural decision,” Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web, 2008, pp. 805–814.
  22. X. Wang, N. Ali, I. Ramos, R. Vidgen, “Agile and Lean Service-Oriented Development: Foundations, Theory, and Practice,” IGI Global, 2012.