A. Orso, M. Harrold, and D. Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks. In 2nd Int. Workshop on Engineering Distributed Objects (EDO 2000), Davis, USA, Nov 2000.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....on. For instance, only those elements belonging to workflow X may be of interest in a design decision. Many concepts for specifying metadata exist and can be used instead if they enable a constraint to select the constrained elements via their metadata. Similar to context properties, [46] suggest to assign di#erent kinds metadata to components in order to use it for di#erent tasks throughout the software engineering lifecycle. Likewise, 56] annotate components in order to perform dependence analysis over these descriptions. Other concepts for considering metadata exist, but none ....

Alessandro Orso, Mary Jean Harrold, and David Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks. In Wolfgang Emmerich and Stefan Tai, editors, Engineering Distributed Objects (EDO 2000.

....supply test sets to purchasers, it becomes necessary to provide a standard, portable way of specifying the tests, so that a component user may assess the reliability of the component or alternatively, the degree of risk associated with its use in an arbitrary target system. Orso et al. s proposal[35] is similar in concept although they do not provide formal de nitions of what they refer to as meta data . We also believe that the requirement for instrumented code for regression tests has signi cant performance implications[36] Requirements for a Standard Test Speci cation To become ....

Orso, A., Harrold, M.J., Rosenblum, D.: Component metadata for software engineering tasks. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Engineering Distributed Objects (EDO 2000). Volume 1999 of LNCS., Springer-Verlag (2001) 129-144

....and unit testing. Specifications are to be inferred from system testing and specification violations by the generated unit tests are used to guide unit test data selection. Also, the partial specifications inferred from testing done by component providers are to be delivered as component metadata [9], which will aid component users to perform test augmentations. Finally, we plan to apply the specification violation techniques in other kinds of inferred specifications, e.g. sequencing constraints or protocols. 8. Acknowledgement We thank Michael Ernst and the Daikon project members at MIT ....

A. Orso, M. J. Harrold, and D. Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks, In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Engineering Distributed Objects, November 2000, pp. 129-144.

....College of Science, Technology and Medicine 1.1 Components, Interfaces and Meta data 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Components, Interfaces and Meta data The term component is used in many different contexts and its meaning is not always the same. Server Al definitions from different sources are offered in [19]. The common elements of the definitions are that a component is the replaceable or deployable unit of functionality in a software system. In this report the term refers to the basic unit of development, deployment and versioning. A component encapsulates functionality that can be accessed by ....

....world. In many cases meta data describes only the syntax of the interface but it can be beneficial to specify extra information about the semantic behaviour of a component. Several attempts have been made to improve robustness and regression testing by extending component meta data in various ways [19] [18] 21] but none are yet in common use. Some systems define an Interface Description Language (IDL) for component meta data so that interfaces may be designed and deployed separately from the components that implements them. However, unless handled correctly, the decoupling of the interface ....

Alessandro Orso, Mary Jean Harrold, and David Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1999:129--??, 2001.

....manufactured by di#erent companies. A common ontology can be ensured by either demanding it from the manufacturers or by intellectually inspecting an o# the shelf or legacy component when integrating it into the system. 6. 3 Benefits of Context Based Constraints Similar to context properties, [16] suggest assigning metadata to components in order to use it for di#erent tasks throughout the software engineering lifecycle. Likewise, 20] annotate components in order to perform dependency analysis over these descriptions. Other concepts for considering metadata exist, but none of them writes ....

Alessandro Orso, Mary Jean Harrold, and David Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks. In Wolfgang Emmerich and Stefan Tai, editors, Engineering Distributed Objects (EDO 2000), volume 1999 of LNCS, Berlin, November 2000. Springer.

....paradigm [1] promises better quality and productivity, in part by addressing reuse and evolution of functionality over time. Unfortunately, this paradigm hasn t reached yet its full promise; in fact, it is presenting some problems more difficult than the traditional development paradigm [2]. Several difficult technical problems remain to be explored and resolved in this field, many resulting from component heterogeneity and the lack of behavioral information about deployed components. Heterogeneity [3] takes place due to the fact that different components can be programmed in ....

A. Orso, M. J. Harrold, and D. Rosenblum, "Component Metadata for Software Engineering Tasks", In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Engineering Distributed Objects, Davis, CA, November 2, 3, 2000

....unassociated model elements can now be expressed via one constraint. Context properties allow subject specific, problem oriented views to be concentrated on. For instance, only those model elements belonging to workflow X may be of interest in a design decision. Similar to context properties, [26] suggest assign di#erent kinds metadata to components in oder to use it for di#erent tasks throughout the software engineering lifecycle. Likewise, 30] annotate components in order to perform dependence analysis over these descriptions. Other concepts for considering metadata exist, but none of ....

Alessandro Orso, Mary Jean Harrold, and David Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks. In Wolfgang Emmerich and Stefan Tai, editors, Engineering Distributed Objects (EDO

No context found.

A. Orso, M. J. Harrold, and D. S. Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks. In W. Emmerich and S. Tai, editors, EDO '00, volume 1999.

....them so that competing manufacturers can offer components that are interchangeable. 2.2 Self Description Self description is a central idea of component technology. Components should be able to provide information about themselves in a systematic way to a CBDE, and to other components at runtime [25]. Description that is contained in the component itself has many advantages over externally stored description. External description, such as documentation stored in text files, can get lost, often has to be updated manually, and cannot easily be queried by development environments. On the other ....

Orso, A., Harrold, M. J., and Rosenblum, D. S. Component Metadata for Software Engineering Tasks. In Proc. 2nd International Workshop on Engineering Distributed Objects (EDO 2000). Springer, Berlin, 2000, 126-140.

.... we introduced a general framework for producing and consuming metadata whose goals are (1) to support the broad range of software engineering tasks that depend on and can benefit from information about external components, and (2) to accommodate component providers intellectual property concerns [16]. This paper explores the application of our metadata framework to the problem of regression test selection for component based software. That is, given (1) an application that uses a set of externallydeveloped components and has been tested with a test suite, and (2) a new version of this set of ....

....and package them with the component. We could then construct, for example, a metadata aware version DejaVuMA of DejaVu. This tool would build the matrix test cases branches covered by gathering the component coverage data for each test case. According to the framework presented in Reference [16], a possible interaction of DejaVuMA with component c for incrementally populating the matrix test cases branches covered could consist of the following steps: 3 1. Get the list of types of coverage metadata provided by the component: List lmd = c.getMetadata( analysis dynamic coverage ) ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

A. Orso, M. J. Harrold, and D. S. Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks. In W. Emmerich and S. Tai, editors, EDO '00, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag / ACM Press, November 2000. (to appear).

No context found.

A. Orso, M. Harrold, and D. Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks. In 2nd Int. Workshop on Engineering Distributed Objects (EDO 2000), Davis, USA, Nov 2000.

No context found.

A. Orso, M. J. Harrold, and D. Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks. In International Workshop on Engineering Distributed Objects (EDO), volume 1999.

No context found.

A. Orso, M. J. Harrold, and D. Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks. In International Workshop on Engineering Distributed Objects (EDO), volume 1999.

No context found.

A. Orso, M. J. Harrold, and D. Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks. In International Workshop on Engineering Distributed Objects (EDO), volume 1999.

No context found.

A. Orso, M. Harrold, and D. Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks. In 2nd Int. Workshop on Engineering Distributed Objects (EDO 2000), Davis, USA, Nov 2000.

No context found.

A. Orso, M. Harrold, and D. Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks. In 2nd Int. Workshop on Engineering Distributed Objects (EDO 2000.

No context found.

A. Orso, M. J. Harrold, and D. Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks. In International Workshop on Engineering Distributed Objects (EDO), volume 1999.

No context found.

A. Orso, M. J. Harrold, and D. Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Engineering Distributed Objects (EDO 2000.

No context found.

A. Orso, M. J. Harrold, and D. Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Engineering Distributed Objects (EDO 2000).

No context found.

M. J. Harrold. Component metadata for software engineering tasks, August 2001.

No context found.

A. Orso, M. Harrold, and D. Rosenblum. Component metadata for software engineering tasks. In 2nd Int. Workshop on Engineering Distributed Objects (EDO 2000), Davis, USA, Nov 2000.

No context found.

Orso A., Harrold M.J. and Rosenblum D. Component Metadata for Software Engineering Tasks. Proceedings of 2 International Workshop on Engineering Distributed Objects (EDO'2000), November 2000.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC