ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Software architecture recovery using Conway's law
Full text PdfPdf (184 KB)
Source IBM Centre for Advanced Studies Conference archive
Proceedings of the 1998 conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative research table of contents
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Page: 6  
Year of Publication: 1998
Authors
Ivan T. Bowman  University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Richard C. Holt  University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Sponsors
IBM Canada : IBM Canada
NRC : National Research Council - Canada
Publisher
IBM Press 
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 14,   Downloads (12 Months): 55,   Citation Count: 2
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  

ABSTRACT

Architectural documentation is recognised as a mechanism for improving software quality and reducing development costs. However, many existing systems do not have any architectural documentation. To obtain the benefits of accurate architectural documentation, research suggests that we use tools to recover the architecture of a system, then continue to use these tools to keep the documentation up to date. This paper describes how the organization of system developers can be extracted and analysed to form an ownership architecture. According to Conway's law, the ownership architecture serves as a predictor of the concrete (as built) architecture, and also provides facts about the location of live design knowledge. To evaluate the usefulness of ownership architectures, we examined three large software systems: Linux1 (800 KLOC), Mozilla (1.5 MLOC), and a commercial software development system (3.8 MLOC). Experience with these systems indicates that ownership architectures can be a powerful addition to a reverse engineering endeavour.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
{2} M. E. Conway. How do comittees invent? Datamation, 14(4):28-31, 1968.
 
3
{3} J. O. Coplien. A development process generative pattern language. In Proceedings of PLoP 1994, Monticello, Illinois, Aug. 1994.
 
4
 
5
 
6
{6} R. Kazman and J. Carrière. Playing detective: Reconstructing software architecture from available evidence. Technical Report CMU/SEI-97-TR-010, Carnegie Mellon University, 1997.
 
7
 
8
 
9
10
11
 
12
 
13
 
14


Collaborative Colleagues:
Ivan T. Bowman: colleagues
Richard C. Holt: colleagues