Y. Lin and S. P. Reiss. Configuration management in terms of modules. In J. Estublier, editor, Software Configuration Management: Selected Papers of the ICSE SCM-4 and SCM-5 Workshops, volume 1005 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 101--117. Springer-Verlag, 1995.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... libraries) This approach however, complicates software development because: i) system building requires extra effort to configure and install the components prior to building the system itself; ii) it yields accessibility problems to locate components and corresponding documentation [99]; iii) it complicates the process of building self97 contained distributions from a system and all its components. Package managers (such as RPM [6] reduce build effort but do not help much to solve the remaining problems. Furthermore, they introduce version problems when different versions of a ....

....the process of building self97 contained distributions from a system and all its components. Package managers (such as RPM [6] reduce build effort but do not help much to solve the remaining problems. Furthermore, they introduce version problems when different versions of a component are used [99, 135]. They also provide restricted control over a component s configuration. All these complicating factors hamper software reuse and negatively influence granularity of reuse [112] We argue that source code components (as alternative to binary components) can improve software reuse for ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Y. Lin and S. P. Reiss. Configuration management in terms of modules. In J. Estublier, editor, Software Configuration Management: Selected Papers of the ICSE SCM-4 and SCM-5 Workshops, volume 1005 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 101--117. Springer-Verlag, 1995.

.... libraries) This approach however, complicates software development because: i) system building requires extra effort to configure and install the components prior to building the system itself; ii) it yields accessibility problems to locate components and corresponding documentation [23]; iii) it complicates the process of building self contained distributions from a system and all its components. Package managers (such as RPM [1] reduce build effort but do not help much to solve the remaining problems. Furthermore, they introduce version problems when different versions of a ....

....the process of building self contained distributions from a system and all its components. Package managers (such as RPM [1] reduce build effort but do not help much to solve the remaining problems. Furthermore, they introduce version problems when different versions of a component are used [23, 29]. They also provide restricted control over a component s configuration. All these complicating factors hamper software reuse and negatively influence granularity of reuse [28] We argue that source code components (as alternative to binary components) can improve software reuse in component ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Y.-J. Lin and S. P. Reiss. Configuration management in terms of modules. In J. Estublier, editor, Software Configuration Management: Selected Papers of the ICSE SCM-4 and SCM-5 Workshops, number 1005 in LNCS, pages 101--117. Springer-Verlag, 1995.

....configuration can be slow, as it forces the baseline tag to be written to all file versions [2] This tagging process is usually synchronous which leads to delays. One proposal is to use SCM tools that does not rely in tagging to produce bound configurations. For instance NUCM [12] POEM [9], and Ragnarok [5] are based on models that support extensional versioning of configurations [1] Alternatively, it seems that by using an asynchronous form of communication the developer can continue his creative line of thought instead of starring at a progress bar. Of course there are the usual ....

....for allowing us to express executable software directly in different architectural views, there is no physical material for a SCM tool to track. Several attempts have been made to create SCM models that track software on a more abstract level than source files, some examples are Adele[6] POEM[9], and Ragnarok[5] but they only try to support a single view (module or conceptual view) and the supported view defines a rigid mapping to the physical software artifacts. ....

Y.-J. Lin and S. P. Reiss. Configuration Management in Terms of Modules. In J. Estublier, editor, Software Configuration Management, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1005. ICSE SCM-4 and SCM-5 Workshops, Springer Verlag, 1995.

.... configuration management (SCM) 20,18,15,35] A less fortunate consequence seems to have been that often SCM has become complicated and burdensome for ordinary developers [2] We believe this is partly because design implementation on one hand and SCM on the other require di#erent mental models [24,23,12] in many SCM systems. This paper outlines an architectural software configuration management model where the logical software architecture [22,31] is used as basis for version and configuration control. Architecture is central as it forms the mental framework developers use to design, discuss, ....

....change was valued; for instance the ConSys project has more than tripled its size in terms of number of components and files during the reported period. 72 Henrik Brbak Christensen 5 Related Work The underlying architectural version and configuration model in COOP Orm [25,26,27] and POEM [24,23] has many similarities to this work. Both systems are focusing on supporting fine grained abstractions but are not used in real life projects. As such we feel that our work complements and adds credibility to COOP Orm and POEM by reporting that architectural models are feasible in practice. The ....

Y.-J. Lin and S. P. Reiss. Configuration Management in Terms of Modules. In Estublier [16].

....structure as attributes of the logical structure. In contrast to our model, these focus on generic configurations through rule based selection [13] Adele, PCL) or a dynamically bound standard version (Gandalf) The underlying version and configuration model in COOP Orm [22, 23, 25] and POEM [20, 19] share the transitive flavour of our model. Both systems are focused on supporting fine grained abstractions but are not used in reallife projects. As such, we feel that our work complements and adds credibility to COOP Orm and POEM by reporting that architectural models are feasible in practice. ....

Y.-J. Lin and S. P. Reiss. Configuration Management in Terms of Modules. In Estublier [14].

....individual methods in a class) infeasible. A future implementation could overcome this limitation by implementing substance as sets of small code fragments in a program database instead. The emphasis on architecture and bound configurations is similar to the ideas in COOP Orm [34, 35, 37] and POEM [33, 32]. The prime difference is research focus: Where COOP Orm and POEM have focused on supporting fine grained abstractions but have not been used in real life projects, the RCM prototype is more coarse grained (using traditional files) but is used for real as described in section 5.3. As such, we ....

Y.-J. Lin and S. P. Reiss. Configuration Management in Terms of Modules. In Estublier [21].

....configuration management and version control. This model also sets distributed dependency information under version control but relies on generic configurations which means a selection mechanism is still essential to recreate context. Another similar approach is taken by Lin and Reiss in POEM [14, 15] where configuration management is made in terms of software units, a concept that resembles software components. Units relate to other units by uses links; selecting a specific version of a unit propagates proper selections to all units that it uses. However POEM seems to have no support for ....

Y.-J. Lin and S. P. Reiss. Configuration Management in Terms of Modules. In Estublier [9].

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