Modelling and verifying smell-free architectures with the Archery language

Architectural (bad) smells are design decisions found in software architectures that degrade the ability of systems to evolve. This paper presents an approach to verify that a software architecture is smellfree using the Archery architectural description language. The language provides a core for modelling software architectures and an extension for specifying constraints. The approach consists in precisely specifying architectural smells as constraints, and then verifying that software architectures do not satisfy any of them. The constraint language is based on a propositional modal logic with recursion that includes: a converse operator for relations among architectural concepts, graded modalities for describing the cardinality in such relations, and nominals referencing architectural elements. Four architectural smells illustrate the approach.

On the verification of architectural reconfigurations

In a reconfigurable system, the response to contextual or internal change may trigger reconfiguration events which, on their turn, activate scripts that change the system׳s architecture at runtime. To be safe, however, such reconfigurations are expected to obey the fundamental principles originally specified by its architect. This paper introduces an approach to ensure that such principles are observed along reconfigurations by verifying them against concrete specifications in a suitable logic. Architectures, reconfiguration scripts, and principles are specified in Archery, an architectural description language with formal semantics. Principles are encoded as constraints, which become formulas of a two-layer graded hybrid logic, where the upper layer restricts reconfigurations, and the lower layer constrains the resulting configurations. Constraints are verified by translating them into logic formulas, which are interpreted over models derived from Archery specifications of architectures and reconfigurations. Suitable notions of bisimulation and refinement, to which the architect may resort to compare configurations, are given, and their relationship with modal validity is discussed.