Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Software engineering researchers have long tried to understand the software process development to mechanize it or at least to codify its good practices. We identify two major approaches to characterize the process. The first approach—known as transformational—sees the process as a sequence of property-preserving transformations. This idea was recently adopted by the OMG’s model-driven architecture (MDA). The second approach consists in identifying and codifying proven solutions to recurring problems. Research on architectural styles, frameworks and design patterns are part of this approach. Our research recognizes the complementarity of these two approaches, in particular in the design step. Indeed within the model-driven development context, we view software design as the process of applying codified solution patterns to input models. Software design is typically defined in terms of architectural design and detailed design. Architectural design aims at organizing the software in modules or components that meet a set of non-functional requirements while detailed design is—in some way—concerned by the contents of the identified components. Architectural design relies on architectural styles which are principles of organization to optimize certain quality requirements, whereas detailed design relies on design patterns to assign responsibilities to classes. Both architectural styles and design patterns are design artifacts that encode proven solutions to recurring design problems. While these design artifacts are documented, the decision to apply them remains essentially manual. Besides, once a decision has been made to use a design artifact, there is no adequate support to apply it to existing models. As design patterns present an “easier” problem to solve, and because architectural styles implementation relies on design patterns, our strategy for addressing these issues was to try to solve the problem for design patterns first, and then tackle architectural styles. Hence, in this thesis, we propose an approach for representing and applying design patterns. Our approach is based on an explicit representation of the problems solved by design patterns. Indeed, and explicit representation of the problem solved by a pattern enables to: (1) better understand the pattern, (2) recognize the opportunity of applying the pattern by matching the representation of the problem against the models of the considered system, and (3) specify declaratively the application of the pattern as a transformation of an instance of the problem into an instance of the solution. To verify and validate the proposed approach, we used it to represent and apply several design patterns. We also conducted practical tests on models generated from open source systems. Keywords. Design patterns, Design problems, Pattern matching, Model marquing, Model transformation, Meta-modelling.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».