MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W195512532

Proceedings of the 2012 workshop on Modularity in Systems Software

2011· article· en· W195512532 sur OpenAlexaff
Bram Adams, Michael Haupt, David H. Lorenz, Eric Wohlstadter

Notice bibliographique

RevueAspect-Oriented Software Development · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésComputer scienceSoftware engineeringSoftware developmentSoftware constructionComponent-based software engineeringPackage development processSoftware systemSoftwareModularity (biology)Social software engineeringOperating system
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The importance of software -- application servers, virtual machines, compilers, operating systems, and other software that provides general services for higher-level applications -- is increasing, as application programmers demand better and higher-level support for software development. Vendors that provide superior support for application development have a competitive advantage. The software industry as a whole benefits as the base level of abstraction increases, thus decreasing the need for application programmers to continually reinvent the wheel. These trends, however, mean that the demands on infrastructure software are increasing. More and more features and requirements are being pushed down into the infrastructure, and the developers of systems software need better tools and techniques for handling these increased demands. Hence, the design and implementation of systems-level software presents unique opportunities and challenges for research on software modularity. These challenges include the need to address the inherent complexity of infrastructure software, the need for strong assurances of correct and predictable behaviour, the need for maximum run-time performance, and the necessity of dealing with the large body of existing systems software components. Various technologies exist for untangling software concerns in systems software, such as macros, components, traits, context layers and aspects. Despite their difference, these actively evolving modularization technologies have much in common. For instance, macros are a fast, simple technique for modularizing low-level operations. At a higher level, component models try to free the developer from the need to deal directly with services like security and transactions. These services can also be interpreted as crosscutting concerns, whose modularization is the main target of trait-based, context- and aspectoriented languages. Macros, aspects, components, context layers and traits can be used individually or in combination to improve the modularization of software. MISS 2011 continues the tradition and broadens the scope of the ACP4IS workshop series. Whereas the original ACP4IS workshops focused on the application, exploration and evaluation of aspects, components and patterns for systems software development, MISS 2011 does not limit itself to these three modularization techniques. Similar to the main AOSD 2011 conference, whose emphasis is Perspectives on Modularity, MISS 2011 considers all kinds of modularity and closely related topics, such as empirical studies on modularity and tool support. The name change is just one step in the ongoing evolution process of ACP4IS, making previously implicit circumstances explicit. Following up on last year's workshop, MISS 2011 put special focus on the challenges in systems software introduced by multi-core platforms. As hardware-supported parallelization becomes mainstream, there is an increasing pressure on systems infrastructure to exploit this new parallelism to its fullest. However, the non-modular nature of parallel execution, and the numerous levels at which parallelism can be achieved (application, systems infrastructure, hardware or even a combination) make it hard to come up with an intuitive, yet efficient parallel architecture. We solicited novel ideas and experience reports on this emerging research area. Other solicited topics included, but were not restricted to: Approaches that combine or relate advanced modularization techniques. Dimensions of infrastructure software quality, including comprehensibility, configurability (by implementers), customizability (by users), reliability, evolvability, scalability, and run-time characteristics like performance and code size.. Merits and downsides of container-, ORB-, and system-based separation of concerns.. Architectural techniques for particular system concerns, e.g., security, static and dynamic optimization, and real-time behaviour.. Design patterns for systems software.. Mining and refactoring of concerns in systems code.. Application- or domain-specific optimization of systems.. Reasoning and optimization across architectural layers.. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation.. To encourage fruitful discussions and build connections between workshop participants, approximately half of the workshop time was devoted to short presentations of accepted papers, with the remaining half devoted to semi-structured discussion groups and lightning talks. The latter are short talks and tool demos to stimulate even more interaction between workshop attendees. Participants were expected to have read the accepted papers prior to the workshop, to help ensure focused discussions.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,042
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,140

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,011
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0060,007
Science ouverte0,0030,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0420,013

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,044
Tête enseignante GPT0,248
Écart entre enseignants0,204 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAspect-Oriented Software DevelopmentMême sujetAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesTravaux en français237 207