D. Wile

University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States

Are you D. Wile?

Claim your profile

Publications (8)0 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We outline our approach to developing, a distributed capability to achieve shared situation awareness of mission status and trust relationships, anticipate and diagnose cyber threats, and respond strategically and tactically to those threats.
    Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems Workshops (SASOW), 2012 IEEE Sixth International Conference on; 01/2012
  • Source
    Conference Paper: Adapting COTS products
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: COTS products can play various architectural roles in software systems: as interfaces to problem-specific functionality, as components that provide such functionality itself, and as intermediary connectors and components in more complex systems. In doing so, COTS products impose their own, unique constraints on organization and functionality. Over the last ten years, we have gained considerable experience with adopting, adapting, and living with the limitations of COTS products. Our goal was to adapt the COTS product to make it fit the application rather than adapting the application needs to make them fit the COTS product - thus, in essence, adapting the COTS product without access to its source code or documentation (a unique form of maintenance). We report on a large set of experiences involving eight COTS products and a wide range of COTS-Based Software Systems - most of which were done with and for industrial partners or government agencies. This experience report attempts to both give a feeling for how applications can be augmented with such COTS interfaces and also tries to tease out the specific architectural issues that anyone adapting COTS products is certain to face.
    Software Maintenance (ICSM), 2010 IEEE International Conference on; 10/2010
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We have gained considerable experience with adapting COTS products to act variously as interfaces to problem-specific functionality and to provide such functionality itself. Several experimental implementations were based on a tool called the Briefing Associate that augmented Microsoft's PowerPoint to support the authoring of semantically grounded applications. Others were based on other Microsoft Office products, such as Access and Excel, and yet others were based on modeling tools such as IBM Rational Rose or Mathwork's MatLab. This report both gives a feeling for how applications can be augmented with such COTS interfaces and also discusses some of the problems that anyone adapting COTS tools is certain to face.
    Incorporating COTS Software into Software Systems: Tools and Techniques, 2007. IWICSS '07. Second International Workshop on; 06/2007
  • SASO; 01/2007
  • Source
    A. Egyed, D. Wile
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Software development is a constant endeavor to optimize qualities like performance and robustness while ensuring functional correctness. Architecture Description Languages (ADLs) form a foundation for modeling and analyzing functional and non-functional properties of software systems, but, short of programming, only the simulation of those models can ensure certain desired qualities and functionalities. The paper presents an adaptation to statechart simulation, as pioneered by D. Harel (1987). This extension supports architectural dynamism: the creation, replacement, and destruction of components. We distinguish between design-time dynamism, where system dynamics are statically proscribed (e.g., creation of a predefined component class in response to a trigger), and run-time dynamism, where the system is modified while it is running (e.g., replacement of a faulty component without shutting down the system). Our enhanced simulation language, with over 100 commands, is tool-supported
    Software Architecture, 2001. Proceedings. Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on; 02/2001
  • Source
    D. Wile
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The language AML (Architecture Meta-Language) is used to specify the semantics of architecture description languages (ADLs). It is a very primitive language, having declarations for only three constructs: elements, kinds and relationships. Each of these constructs may be constrained via predicates in temporal logic. The essence of AML is the ability to specify structure and to constrain the dynamic evolution of that structure. Dynamic evolution concerns arise with considerable variations in the time scale. One may constrain how a system can evolve by monitoring its development lifecycle. Another approach to such concerns involves limiting the systems' construction primitives to those from appropriate styles. One may wish to constrain what implementations are appropriate; concerns for interface compatibility are then germane. Finally, one may want to constrain the ability of the architecture to be modified as it is running. AML attempts to provide specification constructs that can be used to express all of these constraints without committing to which time scale will be used to enforce them
    Automated Software Engineering, 1999. 14th IEEE International Conference on.; 11/1999
  • Source
    David Wile
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The language AML is used to specify the semantics of architecture description languages, ADLs. It is a very primitive language, having declarations for only three constructs: elements, kinds, and relationships. Each of these constructs may be constrained via predicates in temporal logic. The essence of AML is the ability to specify structure and to constrain the dynamic evolution of that structure. Dynamic evolution concerns arise with considerable variation in time scale. One may constrain how a system can evolve by monitoring its development lifecycle. Another approach to such concerns involves limiting systems' construction primitives to those from appropriate styles. One may wish to constrain what implementations are appropriate; concerns for interface compatibility are then germane. And finally, one may want to constrain the ability of the architecture to be modified as it is running. AML attempts to provide specification constructs that can be used to express all of these constra...
    02/1970;
  • Source
    David Wile
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are two major axes along which Quality of Service (QoS) can be measured: resource utilization and robustness. The tendency in the past has been to concentrate on the former: to finely tune large programs to the platforms on which they ran, to make communication paths implicit by programming them into the systems using idiosyncratic -indeed, efficient -methods, and to take advantage of timing and locality assumptions to speed access to data. Robustness of service has obviously suffered severely from such practices – witness Y2K. However, such fine-tuning is essential to the efficient utilization of resources brought to bear in complex systems. Herein, we outline how the modern software engineering technologies for program generation and formal software architecture specification can be adopted to support QoS specifications from which programs will be generated that monitor and guarantee both utilization and robustness QoS promises.