Applying performance patterns for requirements analysis

ABSTRACT

Performance as one of the critical quality requirements for the success of a software system must be integrated into software development from the beginning to prevent performance problems. Analyzing and modeling performance demands knowledge of performance experts and analysts. In order to integrate performance analysis into software analysis and design methods, performance-specific properties known as domain knowledge have to be identified, analyzed, and documented properly. In this paper, we propose the performance analysis method PoPeRA to guide the requirements engineer in dealing with performance problems as early as possible in requirements analysis. Our structured method provides support for identifying potential performance problems using performance-specific domain knowledge attached to the requirement models. To deal with identified performance problems, we make use of performance analysis patterns to be applied to the requirement models in the requirements engineering phase. To show the application of our approach, we illustrate it with the case study CoCoME, a trading system to be deployed in supermarkets for handling sales.

References

1. Alebrahim, A. 2015. Performance analysis patterns for requirements analysis. In Proceedings of Student Research Forum Papers and Posters, the 41st International Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practice of Computer Science (SOFSEM). CEUR Workshop Proceedings Series, vol. 1326. CEUR-WS.org, 54--66.
2. Alebrahim, A., Choppy, C., Fassbender, S., and Heisel, M. 2014. Optimizing functional and quality requirements according to stakeholders' goals. In System Quality and Software Architecture (SQSA). Elsevier, 75--120.
3. Alebrahim, A., Hatebur, D., and Heisel, M. 2011a. A method to derive software architectures from quality requirements. In APSEC. IEEE Computer Society, 322--330.
4. Alebrahim, A., Hatebur, D., and Heisel, M. 2011b. Towards systematic integration of quality requirements into software architecture. In ECSA. LNCS 6903. Springer, 17--25.
5. Alebrahim, A., Heisel, M., and Meis, R. 2014. A structured approach for eliciting, modeling, and using quality-related domain knowledge. In ICCSA. LNCS 8583. Springer, 370--386.
6. Bass, L., Clemens, P., and Kazman, R. 2003. Software architecture in practice Second Ed. Addison-Wesley.
7. Bass, L., Klein, M., and Bachmann, F. 2000. Quality attributes design primitives. Tech. rep., Software Engineering Institute.
8. Ford, C., Gileadi, I., Purba, S., and Moerman, M. 2008. Patterns for Performance and Operability. Auerbach Publications.
9. Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., and Vlissides, J. 1995. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison Wesley.
10. Hatebur, D. and Heisel, M. 2009. A foundation for requirements analysis of dependable software. In SAFECOMP. LNCS 5775. Springer, 311--325.
11. Hatebur, D. and Heisel, M. 2010. Making Pattern- and Model-Based Software Development more Rigorous. In ICFEM. Springer, 253--269.
12. Hatebur, D., Heisel, M., and Schmidt, H. 2008. Analysis and component-based realization of security requirements. In AReS. IEEE Computer Society, 195--203.
13. Jackson, M. 2001. Problem Frames. Analyzing and structuring software development problems. Addison-Wesley.
14. Rausch, A., Reussner, R., Mirandola, R., and Plasil, F. 2008. The Common Component Modeling Example: Comparing Software Component Models 1st Ed. LNCS 5153. Springer.
15. Schmidt, H., Hatebur, D., and Heisel, M. 2011. Software Engineering for Secure Systems: Academic and Industrial Perspectives. IGI Global, 32--74.
16. Smith, C. and Williams, L. G. 2004. Software Performance Engineering. In UML for Real. Springer, 343--365.
17. Smith, C. U. and Williams, L. 2001. Performance solutions, a practical guide to creating responsive, scalable software. ADDISON WESLEY.
18. Smith, C. U. and Williams, L. G. 1993. Software performance engineering: A case study including performance comparison with design alternatives. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 19, 7, 720--741.
19. Smith, C. U. and Williams, L. G. 2006. Five steps to establish software performance engineering. In Int. CMG Conf. 507--516.
20. UML Revision Task Force. 2009. UML Profile for MARTE: Modeling and Analysis of Real-Time Embedded Systems. http://www.omg.org/spec/MARTE/1.0/PDF.
21. Williams, L. G. and Smith, C. U. 1995. Information requirements for software performance engineering. In Computer Performance Evaluation. Springer, 86--101.

Index Terms

• Computing methodologies

  • Machine learning

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Management of computing and information systems

      • System management

        • Quality assurance

• Software and its engineering

  • Software notations and tools

    • General programming languages

      • Language features

        • Patterns

  • Software organization and properties

    • Software system structures

      • Distributed systems organizing principles

        • Client-server architectures

      • Software architectures