Thread View: comp.sw.components
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by Bill Wolfe
Sun, 03 Sep 1989 18:19
Welcome to comp.sw.components!!!
Author: Bill Wolfe
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 1989 18:19
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 1989 18:19
88 lines
5463 bytes
5463 bytes
Welcome to the comp.sw.components newsgroup!!!
The following is a description of the scope of the newsgroup:
$ This newsgroup will facilitate discussions about software components
$ and their design, implementation, and utilization. It is probable that
$ this will be mainly a group of professional component developers, people
$ who are training to become such a professional, and/or people who have an
$ interest in developing their own components from time to time.
$
$ As a "public service", we are also here to help and advise all component
$ users who need advice, and to provide a forum for reviewing the software
$ components provided by vendors. We are also here to allow the people who
$ developed any products which are criticized to show why perhaps the
$ criticism may not be entirely justified, or to seek ideas regarding how
$ the component(s) could be improved, and to provide a means by which new
$ techniques can be spread throughout the component development community.
$
$ Also, questions such as "How can I handle problem X which arises when I
$ try to implement component Y in language Z?" and "I have a nifty priority
$ queue, and would like a B+ tree; anyone wanna trade?" are encouraged.
> What, pray tell, is a "software component"?
In _Software_Components_With_Ada_, Booch defines a software component
as "a container for expressing abstractions of data structures and
algorithms". A software component is generally expected to be:
- cohesive; it should denote a single abstraction. Examples are
the stack, queue, list, tree, and graph abstractions.
- reuseable; it should provide a sufficiently general and useful
service to ensure that it will be used over and over
again by many different programmers for many diverse
application areas. A primary reason for the existence
of software components is that they need only to be
written once; once written, the costs of development
can be spread over thousands of applications, making
the cost to any particular application trivial. This
certainly is not the case for the alternative, building
the same functionality up from scratch for each new
application.
- secure; it must perform reliably under any reasonable
circumstances. If an insertion into a tree causes
memory to be exhausted, it is the responsibility of
the component to see to it that there is no change
of state (hence, the consequence of the memory being
exhausted is simply that the insertion does not occur;
the component is left in whatever state it was in prior
to the attempted insertion), and to report the failure
to the user (e.g., by raising an exception along the lines
of Unable_To_Insert_Due_To_Memory_Exhaustion). Also,
advanced languages such as Ada make it possible to
simultaneously pound a component with arbitrarily
large numbers of service requests from many different
tasks; the component must service all such requests
in a serializable manner, without leading to an
inconsistent internal state. A well-written component
will, furthermore, satisfy such requests in parallel
(i.e., will not just achieve serializability by simply
processing requests one at a time, thus causing big delays).
Finally, it must be impossible for a user to examine
or alter the internal state of a component, unless the
user calls a procedure or function designed to provide
information regarding the component's state (e.g., the
position of the current item in a linked list); this
requirement is typically satisfied by language constructs
like the Ada "limited private" clause.
Intuitively, a software component is analogous to the hardware
components (e.g., integrated circuits) which have been used by
hardware engineers for a very long time. By adopting their
methods, we hope to reduce the costs of software development,
improve the quality of our software, and accelerate software
production. This will lead to lower financial barriers to
software development, and thereby accelerate the use of software
systems throughout the economy, with global economic benefits.
If you'd like to read more about software components, Booch's
_Software_Components_With_Ada_ is a good place to start (ISBN
0-8053-0610-2, Benjamin/Cummings, QA76.73.A35B65). Also, simply
keep reading this newsgroup!! :-)
Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
Re: Welcome to comp.sw.components!!!
Author: Scott Henninger
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 1989 17:38
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 1989 17:38
79 lines
4770 bytes
4770 bytes
|>From: wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu (Bill Wolfe)
|Subject: Welcome to comp.sw.components!!!
|Date: 3 Sep 89 18:19:37 GMT
|
|
| - reuseable; it should provide a sufficiently general and useful
| service to ensure that it will be used over and over
| again by many different programmers for many diverse
| application areas. A primary reason for the existence
| of software components is that they need only to be
| written once; once written, the costs of development
| can be spread over thousands of applications, making
| the cost to any particular application trivial. This
| certainly is not the case for the alternative, building
| the same functionality up from scratch for each new
| application.
This is a narrow viewpoint of software reuse that does no justice to the
difficulty of constructing a good software reuse system. If the above
statement were true, then the problem was solved years ago with the advent
of software libraries. Unfortunately, there are a number of problems with
software libraries that make them less than fully useful:
1. Users do not know what components are available. I.e. it is easier to
write a component themselves than to try to look for something in the
library. This is an information retrieval problem.
2. Users do not know how to use the available components or what they do.
Tools are needed to help the users with these tasks.
3. Library components rarely fit a need exactly. No matter how hard a
library developer tries to cover all contengencis, someone will
eventually need something slightly different than what is offered.
Facilities are needed to allow modification so the components can be
tailored to meet a specific user's needs.
The following article expounds on these viewpoints:
"Cognitive View of Reuse and Redesign"
G. Fischer, IEEE Software, July 1987, 4(4), pp. 60-72.
In addition, I have only addressed the reuse of implementation units. It
may be that we can get a much larger return on investment by reusing
design artifacts or other work products associated with creating a
software system.
| Intuitively, a software component is analogous to the hardware
| components (e.g., integrated circuits) which have been used by
| hardware engineers for a very long time. By adopting their
| methods, we hope to reduce the costs of software development,
| improve the quality of our software, and accelerate software
| production. This will lead to lower financial barriers to
| software development, and thereby accelerate the use of software
| systems throughout the economy, with global economic benefits.
Unfortunately, this is a misleading analogy. In a canonical sense,
hardware only has to implement one thing - a Von Neumann machine (there
are slight adjustments to this architecture, but the point stands).
Software is called upon to implement a vastly larger number of abstract
machines. A DEC VAX and a IBM 3090 are general purpose computing machines
(with different implementations). You can port programs that run on one to
the other. A math package and a windowing package perform very different
functions. You would not think of porting a logarithms functions to a
window system.
Because of this fact, certain elements, such as an ALU, are universially
necessary in hardware, but do not exist for software. Although one can
contrive certain building blocks for software, there are no elements
(other than a hardware platform and a compiler/interpreter) that must
*necessarily* exist for a software system to work. This makes software
and hardware *fundamentally* different, and to use one as an analogy for
the other will only lead to the sort of difficulties being experienced by
those who believe in this approach. For example, notice that most efforts to
create software components systems are criticized for their limited scope
of applications. I would argue that this is a direct consequence of the
hardware analogy, which is doing more harm than good.
-- Scott
scotth@boulder.colorado.edu
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads