ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The emergence of digital computers at the tail end of the last century allowed for the evolution of computer languages from low-level languages of the 1940s to the object-oriented, scripting high-level languages of today. This evolution has, in effect, seen the size and complexity of computer programs increase by a large factor. The software industry has, in response, developed different styles for designing and developing these sophisticated computer programs. While the different styles have advantages and disadvantages and different application domains, modular architecture has stood out as an overarching architecture for designing complicated and enormous software systems of today's world. In this paper, we examine how modularity applies to software architecture design, the concepts of modularity, the metrics of modularity, and current trends in software modularization. We advance the position that modularity will keep influencing software design for the foreseeable future due to the flexibility and the several advantages to the discipline of software design.
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Computer and Organization Trends Volume 12 Issue 1, 3-10, Jan-Feb 2022
ISSN: 2249 2593 / © 2022 Seventh Sense Research Group®
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (
Research Article
On Software Modular Architecture: Concepts,
Metrics and Trends
Mbugua Samuel Thaiya1, Korongo Julia2, Samuel Mbugua3
Department of Information Technology, Kibabii University, Kenya.
Received Date: 10 February 2022
Revised Date: 22 March 2022
Accepted Date: 26 March 2022
Abstract - The emergence of digital computers at the tail
end of the last century allowed for the evolution of
computer languages from low-level languages of the 1940s
to the object-oriented, scripting high-level languages of
today. This evolution has, in effect, seen the size and
complexity of computer programs increase by a large
factor. The software industry has, in response, developed
different styles for designing and developing these
sophisticated computer programs. While the different
styles have advantages and disadvantages and different
application domains, modular architecture has stood out
as an overarching architecture for designing complicated
and enormous software systems of today's world. In this
paper, we examine how modularity applies to software
architecture design, the concepts of modularity, the
metrics of modularity, and current trends in software
modularization. We advance the position that modularity
will keep influencing software design for the foreseeable
future due to the flexibility and the several advantages to
the discipline of software design.
Keywords - Software, Software Architecture, Modular
Architecture, Modularity Metrics.
Today we live in a highly computerized world.
Computers and related technologies control most aspects
of today's lives. One of the major components of these
computers is software which refers to the instructions that
tell a computer what to do. The software comprises the
entire set of programs, procedures, and routines associated
with the operation of a computer system. The term is used
to differentiate these instructions from the physical
components of a computer system the hardware [1].
Since the emergence of digital computers in the 1950s,
writing software has evolved from using machine language
through low-level assembly languages to today's high-level
languages. While high-level languages allow for the
writing of sophisticated computer programs, they also
complicate the design of these programs. As the size and
complexity of software systems increased, the design
problem went beyond the algorithms and data structures of
the computation: designing and specifying the overall
system structure has emerged as a new kind of problem.
Structural issues include overall organization and control
structure; protocols for communication, synchronization,
and data access; assignment of functionality to design
elements; physical distribution; composition of design
elements; scaling and performance; and selection among
design alternatives [2] this is the architecture. Software
Architecture can thus be understood to mean the high-level
structure of a software system. As such, software
architecture can be viewed as consisting of three main
components; the structure of the system, the process of
creating such a structure and the documentation of the
Some of the common styles to represent software
architecture are Pipe and Filters, Layered, Repositories,
Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA), Distributed, and
Modular. To represent a complex interplay of components,
there is a need to adopt a definite style for the process. In
this paper, we focus on the modular architecture of
software design. To understand the modular design, we
first look at how layered and SOA two of the most
popular styles - define software architecture structures.
A popular software architectural style, layered
architecture focuses on the grouping of related
functionality within a software application into distinct
layers stacked on top of each other. Each layer provides
functionality grouped by a common responsibility or role,
with explicit and loosely coupled interactions between the
layers [3]. This style, therefore, helps to support a strong
separation of responsibilities that, in turn, supports the
flexibility and maintainability of a software system.
Similarly, Rengaiah notes that a layered architecture style
distributes the roles and responsibilities around a broader
technical function and depicts an inverted pyramid with
the preceding layer accessing more focused lower-level
layers [4]. In this manner, a layered style highlights the
physical and often the logical layout of a software
application. (Fig. 1)
Mbugua Samuel Thaiya et al. / IJCOT, 12(1), 3-10, 2022
Fig. 1 Layered Architecture
This layered layout is evident, for example, in IBM's
accelerator software system architecture, as shown in fig. 2
Fig. 2 IBM’s Accelerator Software Layered Architecture
Source: [5]
In today’s complex and technologically connected
world, a key component in designing a software artefact is
having it communicate with other artefacts. Inter-artefact
communication allows an organization to quickly realign
and adapt its business processes in response to both
internal and external. The Service-oriented architecture
(SOA) style is concerned with how different system
business functions work with each other. These business
functions are defined as a set of services.
At its core, SOA implies that you have a set of
services that can perform some business function, and your
clients can consume these services to get their work done
[6]. Mehta and Shah observe that SOA codifies how we
can publish, utilize and identify services across various
technical and functional boundaries.
An SOA architecture style is thus largely concerned
with the communication aspects of a software application.
Fig. 3 Service-Oriented Architecture
Source: [6].
While layered architecture and SOA are formidable
styles for software systems, they are faced with certain
deficiencies, especially in the evolving world of software.
A layered system is largely conceived as three tiers - data
access layer, business, presentation that work together to
clarify the relationship between the different elements of a
software system. However, in many modern software
projects, layers have become very large themselves, as
they contain several components and those depend on each
other. Sometimes this dependency matrix is so complex
that it naturally calls for splitting layers into more granular
sub-layers [7]. This then raises the question of how many
layers a software can have and how to manage the
complex inter-relationships between the various
components. An SOA style has similar inherent
deficiencies in how much functionality the will service
will be responsible for.
Fig. 4 SOA elements
For a layered or SOA style to work, specific
components need to know and understand the other
components in the layer or service. They will further have
connected dependencies that may break an entire software
application should one component fail. Further, Narduzzo
and Rossi pose that with the advent of free and open-
source software (FOSS) projects being developed by
several developers located worldwide, how can we have all
these developers work on the same layer or service [8].
Layered and SOA structure a monolithic software system
where the "only" application offers all use-case and
services. These architectural approaches are not only non-
flexible but curtail skills. Newer software architects,
designers and developers with different ways of doing
things cannot implement their skills without decomposing
the entire system. The approach limits the extent to which
a software system can adapt and employ new technologies
and tools.
Mbugua Samuel Thaiya et al. / IJCOT, 12(1), 3-10, 2022
A modular architecture style helps us view a system
not just as a hierarchy of layers or in terms of services
rendered but as a level of depth as a composition of
smaller "modules" [4]. Kirkk defines a module as a
"deployable, manageable, natively reusable, composable,
stateless unit of software that provides a concise interface
to consumers” [9].
The modular architecture thus decomposes a software
program into smaller programs (modules) with
standardized interfaces to allow for communication
between the modules and the core system.
Fig. 5 Modular Architecture
The modular system architecture groups related
functional requirements into a module designed as a
separate structure from the core application but consumes
and expose communication interfaces [8]. The
communications between the modules may be
implemented as I/O stream, I/O buffers, piped or other
types of connections. Each module of the system should
have one specific responsibility, which helps the user
understand the system clearly. It should also help integrate
the module with other components [10].
Rengaiah notes that a module has a clear business
context, is confined to the enclosing physical layer, works
within the context provided and expresses its scope
through a public interface [4]. Consequently, a module
helps us understand, extend, and manage the system during
the design and during run time, that is, design time
modularity and run-time modularity.
For instance, a modular system architecture for
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and Unmanned Ground
Vehicles (UGV), as advanced by Giakoumidis, structures
distinct modules for various UAV/UGV functionality as
well as path planning modules [11]. The modularity of this
architecture makes a rather complicated system feasible for
both development and deployment. Further, it allows for
the implementation of UAVs functionalities without the
need for UGVs and vice versa.
Fig. 6 Modular system architecture
Source [11]
A modular architecture scholarly is perceived as a
manufacturing paradigm for designing and developing
complex artefacts [12]. It is, therefore, a critical element in
defining the design and development of complex software
projects as it provides a comprehensive definition of the
software project. As such, to achieve modularity, an
architect will need to consider certain concepts:
A. Module Interaction with the Application
Every module (artefact) will need to exchange data
and resources with the core system and other modules. The
designer thus needs to provide interfaces/entry points for
this communication. The interfaces will also define the
control of how/what/who/when the exchange happens [13].
Mbugua Samuel Thaiya et al. / IJCOT, 12(1), 3-10, 2022
B. Module Registration
In a modular design, there is a need to create a
mechanism for the system to be aware of the existence of a
specific module. There are two approaches to this:
a) Discovery
In this approach, the main application scans for the
existence of a module and, once discovered, registers the
module. The main application then maintains a registry of
all modules discovered and their statuses. Many modern
software development frameworks have extensively
applied the concept of discovery. The PHP composer
utility, as used in Symphony, Laravel and several other
PHP frameworks, will automatically discover modules and
register them in the framework kernel [14]
b) Configuration
The designer creates specific configuration settings to
allow for the module's registration. This configuration
setting unwraps the module's default behaviour while
allowing it to learn about other modules and the existing
interfaces/entry points.
C. Module Structure (partitioning)
A module needs to have a structure to interface with
the application and other modules. This structure should
define an optimal and practical assignment logic [15].
D. Events
Like the Event-Driven Architecture, a module may
need a structure to utilize events. It should not only be able
to "listen and "react" to events but also "raise" its events
which will trigger reactions in other parts of the software
system [13].
E. Configuration
As the module is a small customizable sub-system,
there is a need to provide configuration of the module to
meet user needs.
The modular architectural design has been advanced
to remedy the deficiencies of the popular layered and SOA
architectures. By introducing granularity and separation of
services, these design styles have supported the design and
development of otherwise very complex software systems.
Further, the modular system architecture is advantageous
as it provides for:
A. Customizations
A generic standard defines systems that can change in
functionalities and services offered by utilizing the
modular design. By enabling or disabling some modules,
an implementation can completely change how a system
works and services rendered. Kibabii University in western
Kenya has amplified the need for modular customizations
in its Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, where
various modules of the ERP are customized to user desires
without affecting other modules of the system [15]. Such
flexibility cannot be achieved when employing a layered
or SOA approach.
B. Less Inter-Dependency
Each module in the system is more independent from
the core software system itself. As long as the interfaces
are compatible, both modules and the core software system
can evolve independently.
C. Third-Party Extensions
Rengaiah notes that modules are not part of the core
system and only communicate with the core system and
with each other through well-defined entry points. As such,
modules can be developed by third parties [4]. The ERP
system at Kibabii University encompasses modules
developed by parties different from the main vendor. For
instance, the Learning Management module is developed
by the Moodle Open Source Community [16, 17].
D. Independent Development
Since the core system and the modules are
independent in modular design, they can therefore be
developed by external developers. This feature has
benefited many free and open-source software (FOSA)
projects [18]. Further, each module's core systems can be
released with independent release cycles and developed
potentially with different technologies and tools. The
modular OpenMRS medical record system has different
modules developed using various technologies. While the
core system is developed in Java and utilizes the Spring
framework, the module repository has modules developed
using AngularJS, ReactJS and Vue frameworks, among
other frameworks, clearly indicating how modularity
allows for independent development [18]. Similarly,
Narduzzo and Rossi, in their study on the design of
complex software artefacts, have attributed the
achievements of various Free/Open Source Software
(FOSS) projects (among them: the GNU operating system,
the Linux kernel, the HURD kernel) to the modular
approach adopted by these FOSS projects [8].
E. Smaller Core Application
The size of the main software system is significantly
reduced since much functionality can be implemented via
modules. This translates to a better understanding of the
system and better maintainability.
F. Reusability
A well-conceived module is fully reusable. You can
reuse the old solution whenever you have the same need
G. Refactorability
The fewer inter-dependencies in a project, the easier it
is to make large changes across multiple modules [19].
H. Scalability
Modular design allows software applications to scale
as it is almost impossible to build large applications
without good modularization. Brinkman and Delamore
note that the complexity of a monolithic system built
without modules will destroy productivity [19].
Mbugua Samuel Thaiya et al. / IJCOT, 12(1), 3-10, 2022
Whereas the modular architecture provides a
convenient architecture for software projects and places
software designers and developers at the centre of software
evolution, thus underlining that business agility can be
enabled through critical design, it is also laced with some
A. Architectural Mismatch
One issue is with systems that integrate orthogonal
functionality into a single modular artefact which
introduces artificial coupling of functionalities driven by a
specific implementation requirement. While such coupling
may have some locally optimal performance, this often
may come at the expense of the global optimality of the
software system [20].
B. Physical Variability
Physical variability refers to how different variable
modules within the same software system are. For the
software application to support all these variable modules,
it will need to provide a generic interface/entry point.
When designing a generalized interface, it is often the case
that neither the union of all possible capabilities nor the
intersection of such capabilities is satisfactory. The generic
product interface thus supports capabilities that often lie in
between [20].
C. Inaccuracy in Modularity Analysis
When choosing certain architecture abstractions,
styles and mechanisms for decomposing a system,
architects may leave some functionalities/services non-
modularized. These functionalities will thus not be
comprehensively provided for in separate modular units in
the architecture description, often leaving functional traces
in some modules. This architectural description may lead
to some false positives in the architecture assessment
process [21]. A fully modularized feature is left in the
architectural description, which may lead to false negatives
in the analysis process.
D. Blurred Inter-Modular Boundaries
The dependency between system requirements is a
piece of pivotal information for software architects to
design well-defined modules. However, as modules take
distinctive paths to design change, existing coupling
metrics may inaccurately identify architectural inter-
module dependencies. The overall outcome is blurred
inter-modular boundaries and tight interfaces coupling [21].
Similarly, the evolution of the software system may keep
increasing the complexity of the design, effectively
omitting finite details of modular characteristics. The
phenomenon, if unchecked, will also lead to a fuzzy inter-
modular boundaries description.
E. Inaccuracy in Identifying Instabilities:
The output of a modular system is based on the
seamless and smooth function of every module and the
communication of the modules. Where there is instability
in the system, there remains a challenge in identifying the
source of instability in the complex modular system. The
problem is that conventional metrics cannot accurately
identify the unstable element/module.
Table 1. Modular system pros and cons summary
Architectural Mismatch
Less interdependency
Physical variability
Third-party extensions
Inaccuracy in modular analysis
Independent development
Vague inter-modular boundaries
Small and robust core application
Difficulty in identifying instabilities
A module is an assemblage of components that share a
common characteristic and assemble according to this
common characteristic to accomplish a designated
objective. Within each module, components are strongly
connected among themselves and relatively weakly
connected to components in other modules. It is important
to measure the strength of these connections between
components which determines the modularity of a software
system. Software architects acclaim software modularity
metrics to monitor projects, discover non-conformities and
point out risks like low modularity in software projects
since the early stages of project development [22]. Some
of the metrics to measure modularity include:
A. Cohesion
Cohesion refers to the relationship between the
internal elements and how cohesive the connections are
Mbugua Samuel Thaiya et al. / IJCOT, 12(1), 3-10, 2022
Fig. 7 Modular Cohesion
The Page-Jones theory on structured systems design
focuses on different forms of cohesion for a modular
architecture: 1) Functional cohesion refereeing to when all
elements of a module contribute to a single well-defined
task. 2) Sequential cohesion is when elements of a module
are grouped because the output from one element is the
input to another element (for example, a function that
reads data from a file and processes the data). 3) Logical
cohesion in cases where elements are grouped logically. 4)
Temporal cohesion where components are related together
in a time-space, e.g. an initialization module. 5)
Communicational cohesion if all activities within the
module act on the same input or output data. 6) Procedural
cohesion in instances where activities of a module are
sequentially executed together to perform a specific task,
and 7) Co-incidental cohesion where elements in a module
are related together in an unplanned and random manner.
This relationship is deemed meaningless as it may lead to
further decomposition of the module [24].
B. Coupling (Degree of Interdependence)
Coupling in software engineering refers to the degree
of interdependence between software modules, measuring
how closely connected two modules are [25]. The software
requirement specification document defines various
aspects of inter-modular dependence and independence.
Fig. 8 Modular Coupling
The degree of interdependence between modules can
be broadly categorized as afferent and efferent coupling.
Afferent coupling is a metric that measures the total
number of elements outside of a module that depends on
elements within the module. In contrast, the efferent
coupling measures the total number of elements within the
module that depend on elements outside the module [22].
Further, the Page-Jones model identifies various forms of
coupling in modular designs: 1) Content coupling, which
refers to interdependence where one module can directly
access or modify or refers to the internal content of another
module. This is the highest form of interdependence. 2)
Common coupling, where a number of modules have
access to read and modify a shared global area. 3) Control
coupling in cases where one module controls how another
module functions. 4) Data Coupling occurs when one or
more modules have some parameterized data
communication. 5) Stamp coupling, where modules share
some common data structures but work on different
sections of the shared data structure [22, 24].
C. Instability
The instability metric measures the instability of
components, where stability is measured by calculating the
effort to change a component without impacting other
components within a software application. Santos et al.
support this position while analyzing Martin's instability
measure. They opine that if an entity has a high value of
instability, then there is a high risk of undesired changes
that could affect the analyzed entity's behaviour due to
changes in other system entities [22].
The quality of a software artefact and its longevity is
determined by its architecture to a great extent [26]. It is
therefore imperative for software architecture to evolve
with time to meet the evolving needs of software users.
Eoin Woods takes a pragmatic look at the five ages of
evolution of software systems and the accompanying five
stages of software architectures [27]. The review
illuminates the path modularity has taken over the
architectural ages to present-day architecture. With each
evolution, modularity has changed from the original
monolithic modules to today's microservice modules.
Mbugua Samuel Thaiya et al. / IJCOT, 12(1), 3-10, 2022
Fig. 9 Modularity travelogue: Adopted with changes from Eoin [27]
The modularity of software has largely paralleled that
of the software industry, with architects' techniques and
concerns changing in response to the changing challenges
the industry has faced.
Today's software systems are more network-centric,
and intelligent modularity has morphed to provide
intelligent interfaces and entry points that no longer need
to be bound to physical computing stations. David Garlan
supports this position and identifies the network-centric
nature of software artefacts as a driver for present and
future software architectures [28]. By evolving to support
code reusability through modern frameworks, the concept
of modularity is embedding itself in the emerging new
architectures while allowing for the development of new
software paradigms [27].
The concept of modularity is embedded in new
cloud-based technologies like SaaS, PaaS and IaaS. As
businesses become more differentiated, their software
needs become more custom necessitating customizable
software to create their unique experience. SaaS vendors
utilize modular SaaS systems where customers can get
different experiences by turning on or off services
packages in modules.
Eoin’s travelogue shows that present and future
intelligent, Internet-native systems will continue to be
dynamic and composed of fine-grained network modules
(micro-services) [27]. The modules are often built on
SaaS/PaaS platforms, allowing customers to choose what
modules fit their needs, economic capacity, and technical
viability to serve unique requirements. Modularity is an
architectural design poised to remain a dominant style of
designing software systems.
Modularity occupies a pivotal position in the design
of good software system architectures. Several software
projects have adopted modular design by going a level
beyond layered, and SOA approaches. The architecture
resolves the problem of monolithic complexity and
granular layered systems that are difficult to design,
develop and implement. Studies have proven and
documented that modular design allows for refactorbility,
reusability, customizations, software collaborations, and
scalability. Further, it is established that modularity leads
to minimalistic core applications allowing for in-depth
understanding and simplifying maintenance of the core
However, modular design also comes with some
challenges: architectural mismatch, physical variability
and blurry inter-module boundaries expose designers to
barriers that need solutions. However, it is notable that
considerable development of modularity measurement
metrics will keep fore sighting the challenges and thus
have them addressed at the inception stages of software
projects. Further, current trends in software systems
design and development show that modularity remains a
dominant style where existing and emerging styles
incorporate the concept of modularity to address the
inherent limitations of non-modular systems.
[1] (2021). Britannica T, Editors of Encyclopaedia, Software.
Encyclopedia Britannica. [Online]. Available:
[2] Garlan D, & Shaw M, An Introduction to Software Architecture. In
Advances in Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering.
(1993) 1-39.
[3] (2010). Chapter 3: Architectural Patterns and Styles. [Online].
[4] (2014). Rengaiah P, On Modular Architectures. Medium. [Online].
[5] (2021). Accelerator (software) - Wikipedia. [Online]. Available:
[6] Mehta M. R, Lee S, & Shah J. R, Service-Oriented Architecture:
Concepts and Implementation. In Proceedings of the Information
Systems Education Conference (ISECON). 23(2335) (2006) 1.
[7] Tutisani T, Effective Software Development for Enterprise Beyond
DDD, Software Architecture, and XP 1st edition: Leanpub. (2020).
Mbugua Samuel Thaiya et al. / IJCOT, 12(1), 3-10, 2022
[8] Narduzzo A, & Rossi A, Modular Design and the Development of
Complex Artefacts: Lessons from Free/Open Source Software,
Quaderno, DISA. 78 (2003).
[9] Knoernschild K, Java Application Architecture: Modularity
Patterns with Examples Using OSGi. Prentice-Hall Press. (2012).
[10] (2021). Tutorialspoint, Software Architecture & Design Tutorial -
Tutorialspoint. [Online] Available:
[11] Giakoumidis N, Bak J. U, Gómez J. V, Llenga A, & Mavridis N,
Pilot-Scale Development of a UAV-UGV Hybrid with Air-Based
UGV Path Planning. In 2012 10th International Conference on
Frontiers of Information Technology IEEE. (2012) 204-208.
[12] Schilling M. A, Toward a General Modular Systems Theory and its
Application to Interfirm Product Modularity, Academy of
Management Review. 25(2) (2000) 312-334.
[13] (2020). Mustafic A, Modular Application Architecture. [Online].
[14] (2021). Package Development - Laravel - The PHP Framework for
Web Artisans. [Online]. Available:
[15] Soothram S, Efficient Techniques for Partitioning Software
Development Tasks. (2010).
[16] (2021). Kibabii, Kibabii University. [Online]. Available:
[17] (2021). Moodle, Moodle Plugins Directory. [Online]. Available:
[18] (2021). OpenMRS I, OpenMRS. [Online]. Available:
[19] (2020). Brinkman S, & Delamore D, The 5 Essential Elements of
Modular Software Design, Medium. [Online]. Available:
[20] Nesnas I. A. D, Simmons R, Gaines D, Kunz C, Diaz-Calderon A,
Estlin T, Madison R, Guineau J, McHenry M, Shu I.-H, &
Apfelbaum D, CLARAty: Challenges and Steps toward Reusable
Robotic Software, International Journal of Advanced Robotic
Systems. (2006).
[21] Sant’Anna C, Figueiredo E, Garcia A, & Lucena C. J, On the
Modularity of Software Architectures: A Concern-Driven
Measurement Framework. In European Conference on Software
Architecture, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. (2007) 207-224.
[22] Santos D, de Resende A. M. P, Lima E. C, & Freire A. P, Software
Instability Analysis Based on Afferent and Efferent Coupling
Measures. J. Softw., 12(1) (2017).
[23] Budd T, Introduction to Object-Oriented Programming, Pearson
Education India. (2008).
[24] Page-Jones M, The Practical Guide to Structured Systems Design.
Yourdon Press. (1988).
[25] (2021). Coupling (computer programming) - Wikipedia. [Online].
[26] Northrop L, Trends and New Directions in Software Architecture,
Carnegie-Mellon Univ Pittsburgh PA Software Engineering Inst.
[27] Woods E, Software Architecture in a Changing World, IEEE
Software. 33(6) (2016) 94-97.
[28] Garlan D, Software Architecture: A Travelogue, In Future of
Software Engineering Proceedings. (2014) 29-39.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Full-text available
As software systems have evolved, so has software architecture, with practices growing to meet each era's new challenges. The next phase of evolution--intelligent connected systems--promises to be an exciting time for software architects.
Full-text available
Many systems migrate towards increasing or decreasing modularity, yet no explicit causal models exist to explain this process. This paper builds a general theory of modular systems, drawing on systems research from many disciplines. This general theory is then used to derive a model of inter-firm product modularity, including testable research propositions. The latter model provides a valuable tool for predicting technological trajectories, and demonstrates how the general theory may be applied to specific systems.
Full-text available
We present in detail some of the challenges in developing reusable robotic software. We base that on our experience in developing the CLARAty robotics software, which is a generic object-oriented framework used for the integration of new algorithms in the areas of motion control, vision, manipulation, locomotion, navigation, localization, planning and execution. CLARAty was adapted to a number of heterogeneous robots with different mechanisms and hardware control architectures. In this paper, we also describe how we addressed some of these challenges in the development of the CLARAty software.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Much of the complexity of software architecture design is derived from the inadequate modularization of key broadly-scoped concerns, such as exception handling, distribution, and persistence. However, conventional architecture metrics are not sensitive to the driving architectural concerns, thereby leading a number of false positives and false negatives in the design assessment process. Therefore, there is a need for assessment techniques that support a more effective identification of early design modularity anomalies relative to crosscutting concerns. In this context, this paper proposes a concern-driven measurement framework for assessing architecture modularity. It encompasses a mechanism for documenting architectural concerns, and a suite of concern-oriented architecture metrics. We evaluated the usefulness of the proposed framework while comparing the modularity of architecture design alternatives in three different case studies.
Full-text available
Software design and development in Free/Open Source projects are analyzed through the lens of the theory of modularity applied to complex systems. Both the architecture of the artifacts (software) and the organization of the projects benefited from the paradign of modularity, in an original and effective manner. Our study shows that three main routines, or shortcuts, emerged and were effectively applied. First, some successful projects inherited previously existing modular architecture, rather than designing new modular systems from scratch. Second, popular modular systems, like GNU/Linux kernel, evolved from an initial integrated structure through a process of evolutionary adaptation. Third, development of modular software took advantage from the violation of one fundamental rule of modularity, that is information hiding. Implications and extensions of Free/Open Source projects' experience are discussed in the conclusions.
In An Introduction to Object-Oriented Programming, Timothy Budd provides a language-independent presentation of object-oriented principles, such as objects, methods, inheritance (including multiple inheritance) and polymorphism. Examples are drawn from several different languages, including (among others) C++, C#, Java, CLOS, Delphi, Eiffel, Objective-C and Smalltalk. By examining many languages, the reader is better able to appreciate the general principles that lie beyond the syntax of the individual languages.
Service-Oriented Architecture: Concepts and Implementation
  • M R Mehta
  • S Lee
  • J Shah
Mehta M. R, Lee S, & Shah J. R, Service-Oriented Architecture: Concepts and Implementation. In Proceedings of the Information Systems Education Conference (ISECON). 23(2335) (2006) 1.
Application Architecture: Modularity Patterns with Examples Using OSGi
  • K Knoernschild
  • Java
Knoernschild K, Java Application Architecture: Modularity Patterns with Examples Using OSGi. Prentice-Hall Press. (2012).