Type of Document Master's Thesis Author Krishnamurthy, Likhita Author's Email Address email@example.com URN etd-05082006-162949 Title Comparative Assessment of Network-Centric Software Architectures Degree Master of Science Department Computer Science Advisory Committee
Advisor Name Title Balci, Osman Committee Chair Arthur, James D. Committee Member Ehrich, Roger W. Committee Member Keywords
- software architecture comparison
- system architecture
- comparative assessment
- software architecture
- architecture evaluation
Date of Defense 2006-05-01 Availability unrestricted AbstractThe purpose of this thesis is to characterize, compare and contrast four network-centric software architectures, namely Client-Server Architecture (CSA), Distributed Objects Architecture (DOA), Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) and Peer-to-Peer Architecture (PPA) and seven associated frameworks consisting of .NET, Java EE, CORBA, DCOM, Web Services, Jini and JXTA with respect to a set of derived criteria. Network-centric systems are gaining in popularity as they have the potential to solve more complex problems than we have been able to in the past. However, with the rise of SOA, Web Services, a set of standards widely used for implementing service-oriented solutions, is being touted as the “silver bullet” to all problems afflicting the software engineering domain with the danger of making other architectures seem obsolete. Thus, there is an urgent need to study the various architectures and frameworks in comparison to each other and understand their relative merits and demerits for building network-centric systems.
The architectures studied here were selected on the basis of their fundamentality and generality. The frameworks were chosen on the basis of their popularity and representativeness to build solutions in a particular architecture. The criteria used for comparative assessment are derived from a combination of two approaches – by a close examination of the unique characteristics and requirements of network-centric systems and then by an examination of the constraints and mechanisms present in the architectures and frameworks under consideration that may contribute towards realizing the requirements of network-centric systems. Not all of the criteria are equally relevant for the architectures and frameworks. Some, when relevant, are relevant in a different sense from one architecture (or framework) to another.
One of the conclusions that can be drawn from this study is that the different architectures are not completely different from each other. In fact, CSA, DOA and SOA are a natural evolution in that order and share several characteristics. At the same time, significant differences do exist, so it is clearly possible to judge/differentiate one from the other. All three architectures can coexist in a single system or system of systems. However, the advantages of each architecture become apparent only when they are used in their proper scope. At the same time, a sharp difference can be perceived between these three architectures and the peer-to-peer architecture. This is because PPA aims to solve a totally different class of problems than the other three architectures and hence has certain unique characteristics not observed in the others. Further, all of the frameworks have certain unique architectural features and mechanisms not found in the others that contribute towards achieving network-centric quality characteristics. The two broad frameworks, .NET and Java EE offer almost equivalent capabilities and features; what can be achieved in one can be achieved in the other.
This thesis deals with the study of all the four architectures and their related frameworks. The criteria used, while fairly comprehensive, are not exhaustive. Variants of the fundamental architectures are not considered. However, system/software architects seeking an understanding of the tradeoffs involved in using the various architectures and frameworks and their subtle nuances should benefit considerably from this work.
Filename Size Approximate Download Time (Hours:Minutes:Seconds)
28.8 Modem 56K Modem ISDN (64 Kb) ISDN (128 Kb) Higher-speed Access Likhita_Thesis_corrected2.pdf 1.04 Mb 00:04:49 00:02:28 00:02:10 00:01:05 00:00:05
If you have questions or technical problems, please Contact DLA.