Refine
Document Type
- Conference proceeding (14)
- Journal article (4)
Language
- English (18)
Has full text
- yes (18)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (18)
Institute
- Informatik (18)
Publisher
- Springer (6)
- IEEE (4)
- Association for Computing Machinery (3)
- Cornell Universiy (1)
- PeerJ Inc. (1)
- RWTH Aachen (1)
- SciTePress (1)
Towards a practical maintainability quality model for service- and microservice-based systems
(2017)
Although current literature mentions a lot of different metrics related to the maintainability of service-based systems (SBSs), there is no comprehensive quality model (QM) with automatic evaluation and practical focus. To fill this gap, we propose a Maintainability Model for Services (MM4S), a layered maintainability QM consisting of service properties (SPs) related with automatically collectable Service Metrics (SMs). This research artifact created within an ongoing Design Science Research (DSR) project is the first version ready for detailed evaluation and critical feedback. The goal of MM4S is to serve as a simple and practical tool for basic maintainability estimation and control in the context of BSs and their specialization
microservice-based systems (μSBSs).
In a time of digital transformation, the ability to quickly and efficiently adapt software systems to changed business requirements becomes more important than ever. Measuring the maintainability of software is therefore crucial for the long-term management of such products. With service-based systems (SBSs) being a very important form of enterprise software, we present a holistic overview of such metrics specifically designed for this type of system, since traditional metrics – e.g. object oriented ones – are not fully applicable in this case. The selected metric candidates from the literature review were mapped to 4 dominant design properties: size, complexity, coupling, and cohesion. Microservice-based systems (μSBSs) emerge as an agile and fine grained variant of SBSs. While the majority of identified metrics are also applicable to this specialization (with some limitations), the large number of services in combination with technological heterogeneity and decentralization of control significantly impacts automatic metric collection in such a system. Our research therefore suggests that specialized tool support is required to guarantee the practical applicability of the presented metrics to μSBSs.
To bring a pattern-based perspective to the SOA vs. microservices discussion, we qualitatively analyzed a total of 118 SOA patterns from 2 popular catalogs for their (partial) applicability to microservices. Patterns had to hold up to 5 derived microservices principles to be applicable. 74 patterns (63%) were categorized as fully applicable, 30 (25%) as partially applicable, and 14 (12%) as not applicable. Most frequently violated microservices characteristics werde Decentralization and Single System. The findings suggest that microservices and SOA share a large set of architectural principles and solutions in the general space of service-based systems while only having a small set of differences in specific areas.
Maintainability assurance techniques are used to control this quality attribute and limit the accumulation of potentially unknown technical debt. Since the industry state of practice and especially the handling of service- and microservice-based systems in this regard are not well covered in scientific literature, we created a survey to gather evidence for a) used processes, tools, and metrics in the industry, b) maintainability-related treatment of systems based on service orientation, and c) influences on developer satisfaction w.r.t. maintainability. 60 software professionals responded to our online questionnaire. The results indicate that using explicit and systematic techniques has benefits for maintainability. The more sophisticated the applied methods the more satisfied participants were with the maintainability of their software while no link to a hindrance in productivity could be established. Other important findings were the absence of architecture-level evolvability control mechanisms as well as a significant neglect of service-oriented particularities for quality assurance. The results suggest that industry has to improve its quality control in these regards to avoid problems with long living service-based software systems.
While there are several theoretical comparisons of Object Orientation (OO) and Service Orientation (SO), little empirical research on the maintainability of the two paradigms exists. To provide support for a generalizable comparison, we conducted a study with four related parts. Two functionally equivalent systems (one OO and one SO version) were analyzed with coupling and cohesion metrics as well as via a controlled experiment, where participants had to extend the systems. We also conducted a survey with 32 software professionals and interviewed 8 industry experts on the topic. Results indicate that the SO version of our system possesses a higher degree of cohesion, a lower degree of coupling, and could be extended faster. Survey and interview results suggest that industry sees systems built with SO as more loosely coupled, modifiable, and reusable. OO systems, however, were described as less complex and easier to test.
While the recently emerged microservices architectural style is widely discussed in literature, it is difficult to find clear guidance on the process of refactoring legacy applications. The importance of the topic is underpinned by high costs and effort of a refactoring process which has several other implications, e.g. overall processes (DevOps) and team structure. Software architects facing this challenge are in need of selecting an appropriate strategy and refactoring technique. One of the most discussed aspects in this context is finding the right service granularity to fully leverage the advantages of a microservices architecture. This study first discusses the notion of architectural refactoring and subsequently compares 10 existing refactoring approaches recently proposed in academic literature. The approaches are classified by the underlying decomposition technique and visually presented in the form of a decision guide for quick reference. The review yielded a variety of strategies to break down a monolithic application into independent services. With one exception, most approaches are only applicable under certain conditions. Further concerns are the significant amount of input data some approaches require as well as limited or prototypical tool support.
While Microservices promise several beneficial characteristics for sustainable long-term software evolution, little empirical research covers what concrete activities industry applies for the evolvability assurance of Microservices and how technical debt is handled in such systems. Since insights into the current state of practice are very important for researchers, we performed a qualitative interview study to explore applied evolvability assurance processes, the usage of tools, metrics, and patterns, as well as participants’ reflections on the topic. In 17 semi-structured interviews, we discussed 14 different Microservice-based systems with software professionals from 10 companies and how the sustainable evolution of these systems was ensured. Interview transcripts were analyzed with a detailed coding system and the constant comparison method.
We found that especially systems for external customers relied on central governance for the assurance. Participants saw guidelines like architectural principles as important to ensure a base consistency for evolvability. Interviewees also valued manual activities like code review, even though automation and tool support was described as very important. Source code quality was the primary target for the usage of tools and metrics. Despite most reported issues being related to Architectural Technical Debt (ATD), our participants did not apply any architectural or service-oriented tools and metrics. While participants generally saw their Microservices as evolvable, service cutting and finding an appropriate service granularity with low coupling and high cohesion were reported as challenging. Future Microservices research in the areas of evolution and technical debt should take these findings and industry sentiments into account.
To remain competitive in a fast changing environment, many companies started to migrate their legacy applications towards a Microservices architecture. Such extensive migration processes require careful planning and consideration of implications and challenges likewise. In this regard, hands-on experiences from industry practice are still rare. To fill this gap in scientific literature, we contribute a qualitative study on intentions, strategies, and challenges in the context of migrations to Microservices. We investigated the migration process of 14 systems across different domains and sizes by conducting 16 in-depth interviews with software professionals from 10 companies. Along with a summary of the most important findings, we present a separate discussion of each case. As primary migration drivers, maintainability and scalability were identified. Due to the high complexity of their legacy systems, most companies preferred a rewrite using current technologies over splitting up existing code bases. This was often caused by the absence of a suitable decomposition approach. As such, finding the right service cut was a major technical challenge, next to building the necessary expertise with new technologies. Organizational challenges were especially related to large, traditional companies that simultaneously established agile processes. Initiating a mindset change and ensuring smooth collaboration between teams were crucial for them. Future research on the evolution of software systems can in particular profit from the individual cases presented.
Software evolvability is an important quality attribute, yet one difficult to grasp. A certain base level of it is allegedly provided by service- and microservice-based systems, but many software professionals lack systematic understanding of the reasons and preconditions for this. We address this issue via the proxy of architectural modifiability tactics. By qualitatively mapping principles and patterns of Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) and microservices onto tactics and analyzing the results, we cannot only generate insights into service-oriented evolution qualities, but can also provide a modifiability comparison of the two popular service-based architectural styles. The results suggest that both SOA and microservices possess several inherent qualities beneficial for software evolution. While both focus strongly on loose coupling and encapsulation, there are also differences in the way they strive for modifiability (e.g. governance vs. evolutionary design). To leverage the insights of this research, however, it is necessary to find practical ways to incorporate the results as guidance into the software development process.
Background: Design patterns are supposed to improve various quality attributes of software systems. However, there is controversial quantitative evidence of this impact. Especially for younger paradigms such as service- and microservice-based systems, there is a lack of empirical studies.
Objective: In this study, we focused on the effect of four service-based patterns - namely process abstraction, service façade, decomposed capability, and event-driven messaging - on the evolvability of a system from the viewpoint of inexperienced developers.
Method: We conducted a controlled experiment with Bachelor students (N = 69). Two functionally equivalent versions of a service-based web shop - one with patterns (treatment group), one without (control group) - had to be changed and extended in three tasks. We measured evolvability by the effectiveness and efficiency of the participants in these tasks. Additionally, we compared both system versions with nine structural maintainability metrics for size, granularity, complexity, cohesion, and coupling.
Results: Both experiment groups were able to complete a similar number of tasks within the allowed 90 min. Median effectiveness was 1/3. Mean efficiency was 12% higher in the treatment group, but this difference was not statistically significant. Only for the third task, we found statistical support for accepting the alternative hypothesis that the pattern version led to higher efficiency. In the metric analysis, the pattern version had worse measurements for size and granularity while simultaneously having slightly better values for coupling metrics. Complexity and cohesion were not impacted.
Interpretation: For the experiment, our analysis suggests that the difference in efficiency is stronger with more experienced participants and increased from task to task. With respect to the metrics, the patterns introduce additional volume in the system, but also seem to decrease coupling in some areas.
Conclusions: Overall, there was no clear evidence for a decisive positive effect of using service-based patterns, neither for the student experiment nor for the metric analysis. This effect might only be visible in an experiment setting with higher initial effort to understand the system or with more experienced developers.