DOCSLIB.ORG

Software Reuse: Methods, Models, and Costs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Software Reuse: Methods, Models, and Costs SOFTWARE REUSE: METHODS, MODELS, AND COSTS Ronald J. Leach Copyright © 2011by Ronald J. Leach Leach, Ronald J. Software Reuse: Methods, Models, Costs/Ronald J. Leach p. cm. Includes bibliographical references ISBN: 1. Software (Computers) 2. Cost estimation (Computers) I. Title II. QA Books by Ronald J. Leach Using C in Software Design Advanced Topics in UNIX Object-Oriented Design and Programming in C++ Software Reuse: Methods, Models, Costs Software Engineering Why 2K? Relative Genealogy Genealogy for the Information Age Identity Theft in the Cyber Age Table of Contents To The Reader Preface Preface to the Electronic Edition CHAPTER 1 WHAT IS SOFTWARE REUSE? 1.1 Origins of Software Reuse 1.2 Reuse and the Software Life Cycle 1.3 Software Reuse, Rapid Prototyping, and Evolving Systems 1.4 Typical Duties of Members of a Reuse Team 1.5 Reengineering and Reuse 1.6 Library Issues 1.7 Potential Disadvantages of Reuse 1.8 Legal and Contractual Issues with Software Reuse 1.9 The Current Status of Software Reuse Summary Further Reading Exercises CHAPTER 2 TECHNIQUES 2.1 Domain Analysis 2.2 An Example - Domain Analysis of the Linux Operating System 2.3 Domain Analysis Revisited 2.4 Object-Oriented Approaches 2.5 Standard Interfaces 2.6 Designing for Reuse 2.7 Using Reuse to Drive Requirements Analysis 2.8 Metrics for Reuse Summary Further Reading Exercises CHAPTER 3 REUSE LIBRARIES 3.1 General Reuse Library Issues 3.2 Organizational Issues for Reuse Libraries 3.3 Managerial Issues for Reuse Libraries 3.4 Research Issues in Reuse Library Organization 3.5 Reuse Libraries for Ada Software 3.5.1 The Public Ada Library 3.5.2 The Ada Software Repository 3.5.3 The STARS and CARDS Programs 3.5.4 The Asset Program 3.5.5 Other Sources 3.6 Reuse Libraries for C++ Language Software 3.7 Reuse Libraries for C Language Software 3.8 Reuse Libraries for Higher Level Language Software Summary Further Reading Exercises CHAPTER 4 CERTIFICATION OF REUSABLE SOFTWARE COMPONENTS 4.1 The Need for Certification 4.2 The Difference Between Certification and Testing 4.3 Suggested Standards and Practices for Certification of Software Artifacts 4.3.1 Code Certification 4.3.2 Requirements Certification 4.3.3 Design Certification 4.3.4 Test Plan and Test Results Certification 4.3.5 Documentation Certification 4.3.6 System Certification 4.4 The Role of Metrics 4.5 An Overview of Software Reliability 4.6 Certification, Testing, and Reliability Modelling 4.7 Certification of Potentially Reusable Software Components is not Always Necessary_ Summary Further Reading Exercises CHAPTER 5 THE ECONOMICS OF SOFTWARE REUSE 5.1 Life Cycle Leverage 5.2 Cost Models for Reuse Using the Classic Waterfall Life Cycle 5.2.1 Reuse in the Requirements or Specification Phase 5.2.3 Reuse in the Design phase 5.2.3 Reuse in the Coding phase 5.2.4 Reuse in the Testing and Integration phase 5.2.5 Reuse in the Maintenance phase 5.3 A Cost Model for Reuse Using the Rapid Prototyping Model 5.4 A Cost Model for Reuse for a System Developed Using the Spiral Model 5.5 A Cost Model for Reuse for a System Using Only COTS 5.6 Other Reuse-Based Cost Estimation Models 5.7 Estimation of Other Resources in Reuse-based Environments 5.8 The Economic Reuse Quantity Summary Further Reading Exercises CHAPTER 6 REENGINEERING 6.1 Program Translation 6.2 An example of semantic reasoning in reengineering 6.3 Transitioning to an Object-Oriented System 6.4 Specifications for a File System Simulation 6.5 Procedurally-based System Design 6.6 Implementation Details for a Procedurally-based Disk Simulation 6.7 Source Code for Procedural System (Optional) 6.8 Reengineering a Procedurally-based System into an Object- Oriented One 6.9 An Object-Oriented Disk Simulation Program 6.10 Source Code for an Object-Oriented Solution 6.11 Comparison of Object-Oriented and Procedural Solutions Summary Further Reading Exercises CHAPTER 7 CASE STUDIES 7.1 Some Reuse Activities at NASA 7.1.1 Introduction 7.1.2 Methodology Used for the Collection of Metrics Data 7.1.3 Results 7.1.4 Recommendations 7.2 Some Reuse Activities at AT&T 7.3 Some Reuse Activities at Battelle Laboratory 7.4 Some Reuse Activities at Hewlett-Packard 7.5 A Hypothetical Failed Software Reuse Program Summary Further Reading Exercises CHAPTER 8 TOOLS FOR SOFTWARE REUSE 8.1 The InQuisiX System of Reuse Tools 8.2 A Simple Text-Based System 8.3 The AT&T BaseWorX Application Platform 8.4 A Knowledge-Based Tool for Reuse 8.5 Issues with Network-based Tools for Software Reuse Summary Further Reading Exercises REFERENCES Appendix 1 Metrics Appendix 2 Sources Appendix 3 Glossary Appendix 4 Suggested Term Projects Appendix 5 Checklist for Software Reuse in a Changing Environment INDEX To the Reader This book was originally published in 1997 by McGraw-Hill publishing company in New York. It has been out of print for several years. However, except for a few, easily spotted out-of-date references (such as one that describes floppy disks!) to specific software packages, and a few of the tools being superseded by newer versions and software packages, the basic ideas continue to be completely relevant to the needs of those who produce large software systems. In fact, the newest trend in software engineering in the defense arena is the development of what are called “systems of systems,” which cries out for systematic software reuse. In this troubled time period for the publishing industry, it makes little sense for an author to attempt to even consider publishing a book with a relatively small potential audience under the auspices of a major publisher. Instead of doing all the work for a second edition, with the strong probability that this effort will be for naught, it made more sense to simply reissue the book electronically. I hope this book is useful to you. Preface The primary intended audience for this book is software engineers and managers faced with practical problems in developing software, especially schedule, cost, and quality pressures. The book can be used as a secondary reference for additional reading in an upper-division or graduate-level software engineering or software engineering economics course. It can also be used as the primary text in an advanced software engineering course based primarily on software reuse. Both professionals and students can read the book profitably. The typical reader of this book will have had previous exposure to the development and maintenance of software systems that are too complex to be designed and implemented by a single person. Software reuse continues to be one of the hottest topics in software engineering. For the past few years, nearly every conference with a heavy focus on software engineering has included at least one paper session, panel discussion, or invited talk on some aspect of software reuse. Many larger conferences have tutorial sessions on software reuse. Software reuse is the software engineer's attempt to model the process by which an electrical engineer designs circuits by using standard components with well-defined, well-documented interfaces. Reusable components can be found at any place in the software life cycle: requirements, design, code, test, integration, documentation, and maintenance. Reuse often allows the software engineer to be much more productive since total life cycle costs frequently can be greatly reduced. While this book will provide a complete description of software reuse, it will focus on methods for reuse that are feasible without major investments in new software methodology, on cost estimation issues, and on certification of reusable software components. It will be based on experiences dealing with systems that are changing rapidly. This viewpoint is different from the perspective of many writers in this area who only consider systems that are stable over time. However, it is consistent with software development using the rapid prototyping or spiral models of the development process. This book emphasizes both theoretical and practical techniques for the reuse of software artifacts. Software artifacts include source code modules, requirements, designs, documentation, user manuals, test plans, test cases, test case results, and installation guides. The book is organized as follows: Chapter 1 is an introductory chapter. In it, we present a rationale for software reuse and briefly describe some of the early results and current trends. Disincentives to software reuse, including legal and security issues are also presented. Chapter 2 presents more detailed discussions of several essential techniques. The primary theoretical technique discussed is domain analysis. Domain analysis is the application of systems engineering principles to the determination of common components in an organization's collection of software artifacts. The practical techniques discussed will include the development of standard interfaces, object- oriented approaches, designing for reuse, setting requirements to meet reuse standards, and some appropriate metrics. We introduce the issue of reuse library management in Chapter 3. This chapter also includes a discussion of some of the more readily- available reuse libraries, with some description of software artifacts that are at a higher level than source code. These higher-level artifacts include some designs, complete subsystems, and software written in fourth generation languages. Chapter 4 is devoted to the certification of reusable software components. The term “certification” refers to a quality evaluation taken after the software artifact has passed through normal software testing and has been placed into service. An additional certification step is necessary, because software components may be used in contexts other than the one in which they were originally developed. There will also be recommendations for appropriate standards and practices to encourage the systematic employment of software reuse.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Real-Time Operating System in Java
    University of Wollongong Theses Collection University of Wollongong Theses Collection University of Wollongong Year Real-time operating system in Java Qinghua Lu University of Wollongong Lu, Qinghua, Real-time operating system in Java, MA thesis, School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, University of Wollongong, 2007. http://ro.uow.edu/theses/29 This paper is posted at Research Online. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/29 Real-time Operating System in Java A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree Master of Computer Science -Research from UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG by Qinghua Lu School of Computer Science & Software Engineering August, 2007 1 Dedicated to My Parents, Lu Changyou and Luo Xiue! 2 The following papers were written as part of this research. 1. McKerrow, P.J., Lu, Q., Zhou, Z.Q. and Chen, L. (2007), Developing real-time systems in Java on Macintosh, Submitted to AUC’07, Apple University Consortium, Gold Coast, September, 23-26, 2007. 2. McKerrow, P.J., Lu, Q., Zhou, Z.Q. and Chen, L. (2007), Software development of embedded systems on Macintosh, Submitted to AUC’07, Apple University Consortium, Gold Coast, September, 23-26, 2007. 3 Declaration I, Qinghua Lu, declare that this thesis, submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Master of Computer Science -Research, in the School of Computer Science & Software Engineering, University of Wollongong, is wholly my own work unless otherwise referenced or acknowledged. The document has not been submitted for qualifications
    [Show full text]
  • Alpha ELT Listing
    Lienholder Name Lienholder Address City State Zip ELT ID 1ST ADVANTAGE FCU PO BX 2116 NEWPORT NEWS VA 23609 CFW 1ST COMMAND BK PO BX 901041 FORT WORTH TX 76101 FXQ 1ST FNCL BK USA 47 SHERMAN HILL RD WOODBURY CT 06798 GVY 1ST LIBERTY FCU PO BX 5002 GREAT FALLS MT 59403 ESY 1ST NORTHERN CA CU 1111 PINE ST MARTINEZ CA 94553 EUZ 1ST NORTHERN CR U 230 W MONROE ST STE 2850 CHICAGO IL 60606 GVK 1ST RESOURCE CU 47 W OXMOOR RD BIRMINGHAM AL 35209 DYW 1ST SECURITY BK WA PO BX 97000 LYNNWOOD WA 98046 FTK 1ST UNITED SVCS CU 5901 GIBRALTAR DR PLEASANTON CA 94588 W95 1ST VALLEY CU 401 W SECOND ST SN BERNRDNO CA 92401 K31 360 EQUIP FIN LLC 300 BEARDSLEY LN STE D201 AUSTIN TX 78746 DJH 360 FCU PO BX 273 WINDSOR LOCKS CT 06096 DBG 4FRONT CU PO BX 795 TRAVERSE CITY MI 49685 FBU 777 EQUIPMENT FIN LLC 600 BRICKELL AVE FL 19 MIAMI FL 33131 FYD A C AUTOPAY PO BX 40409 DENVER CO 80204 CWX A L FNCL CORP PO BX 11907 SANTA ANA CA 92711 J68 A L FNCL CORP PO BX 51466 ONTARIO CA 91761 J90 A L FNCL CORP PO BX 255128 SACRAMENTO CA 95865 J93 A L FNCL CORP PO BX 28248 FRESNO CA 93729 J95 A PLUS FCU PO BX 14867 AUSTIN TX 78761 AYV A PLUS LOANS 500 3RD ST W SACRAMENTO CA 95605 GCC A/M FNCL PO BX 1474 CLOVIS CA 93613 A94 AAA FCU PO BX 3788 SOUTH BEND IN 46619 CSM AAC CU 177 WILSON AVE NW GRAND RAPIDS MI 49534 GET AAFCU PO BX 619001 MD2100 DFW AIRPORT TX 75261 A90 ABLE INC 503 COLORADO ST AUSTIN TX 78701 CVD ABNB FCU 830 GREENBRIER CIR CHESAPEAKE VA 23320 CXE ABOUND FCU PO BX 900 RADCLIFF KY 40159 GKB ACADEMY BANK NA PO BX 26458 KANSAS CITY MO 64196 ATF ACCENTRA CU 400 4TH
    [Show full text]
  • The Synthesis Kernel
    ... " The Synthesis Kernel Calton Pu, Henry Massalin and 21 ~; John loannidis Columbia University ABSTRACT: The Synthesis distributed operating system combines etticient kernel calls with a high­ level, orthogonal interface. The key concept is the use of a code synthesizer in the kernel to generate specialized (thus short and fast) kernel routines for specific situations. We have three methods of synthesizing code: Factoring Invariants to bypass redundant computations; Collapsing Layers to eliminate unnecessary procedure calls and context switches; and Executable Data Structures to shorten data structure traversal time. Applying these methods, the kernel call synthesized to read Idevlmem takes about 15 microseconds on a 68020 machine. A simple model of computation called a synthetic machine supports parallel and distributed processing. The interface to synthetic machine consists of six operations on four kinds of ohjects. This combination of a high-level interface with the code synthesizer avoids the traditional trade-off in operating systems between powerful interfaces and efficient implementations . ., Complliing .\'yslt'nIS, Vol. 1 • No.1' Winter IIJI!I! I I I. Introduction and data, and synthetic 1/0 units to move data in to and out of the synthetic machine. The synthetic machine interface and kernel code synthesizer A trade-off between powerful features and efficient arc independent ideas that have a synergistic eliect. Without the implementation exists in many operating systems. Systems with code synthesizer. even a sophisticated implementation of synthetic high-level interfaces and powerful features, like Argus lO and Eden/ machines would be very inetlicient. Each high-level kernel call require a lot of code for their implementation, and this added would require a large amount of code with a long execution time.
    [Show full text]
  • Empirical Comparison of Scons and GNU Make
    Großer Beleg Empirical Comparison of SCons and GNU Make Ludwig Hähne August 21, 2008 Technical University Dresden Department of Computer Science Institute for System Architecture Chair for Operating Systems Professor: Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Hermann Härtig Tutor: Dipl.-Inf. Norman Feske Dipl.-Inf. Christian Helmuth Erklärung Hiermit erkläre ich, dass ich diese Arbeit selbstständig erstellt und keine anderen als die angegebenen Hilfsmittel benutzt habe. Dresden, den 26. Juni 2008 Ludwig Hähne Abstract Build systems are an integral part of every software developer’s tool kit. Next to the well-known Make build system, numerous alternative solutions emerged during the last decade. Even though the new systems introduced superior concepts like content signa- tures and promise to provide better build accuracy, Make is still the de facto standard. This paper examines GNU Make and SCons as representatives of two conceptually distinct approaches to conduct software builds. General build-system concepts and their respective realizations are discussed. The performance and scalability are empirically evaluated by confronting the two competitors with comparable real and synthetic build tasks. V Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Background 3 2.1 Design Goals . .3 2.1.1 Convenience . .3 2.1.2 Correctness . .3 2.1.3 Performance . .3 2.1.4 Scalability . .4 2.2 Software Rebuilding . .4 2.2.1 Dependency analysis . .4 2.2.1.1 File signatures . .4 2.2.1.2 Fine grained dependencies . .5 2.2.1.3 Dependency declaration . .5 2.2.1.4 Dependency types . .5 2.2.2 Build infrastructure . .6 2.2.3 Command scheduling . .6 2.3 Build System Features .
    [Show full text]
  • Sealing OS Processes to Improve Dependability and Security
    Sealing OS Processes to Improve Dependability and Safety Galen Hunt, Mark Aiken, Manuel Fähndrich, Chris Hawblitzel, Orion Hodson, James Larus, Steven Levi, Bjarne Steensgaard, David Tarditi, and Ted Wobber Microsoft Research One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 USA [email protected] ABSTRACT General Terms In most modern operating systems, a process is a Design, Reliability, Experimentation. hardware-protected abstraction for isolating code and data. This protection, however, is selective. Many common Keywords mechanisms—dynamic code loading, run-time code Open process architecture, sealed process architecture, sealed generation, shared memory, and intrusive system APIs— kernel, software isolated process (SIP). make the barrier between processes very permeable. This paper argues that this traditional open process architecture 1. INTRODUCTION exacerbates the dependability and security weaknesses of Processes debuted, circa 1965, as a recognized operating modern systems. system abstraction in Multics [48]. Multics pioneered As a remedy, this paper proposes a sealed process many attributes of modern processes: OS-supported architecture, which prohibits dynamic code loading, self- dynamic code loading, run-time code generation, cross- modifying code, shared memory, and limits the scope of process shared memory, and an intrusive kernel API that the process API. This paper describes the implementation permitted one process to modify directly the state of of the sealed process architecture in the Singularity another process. operating system,
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Java Operating Systems, OS on a Higher Level
    Introduction to Java operating systems, OS on a higher level. By: Benedict Ching Wei Ming Martin Ericsson Peter Haglund May 2006 Introduction The way that programs are engineered has evolved from assembler to object-programming methods. However, the evolution of operating systems has not kept up with these new methods. There are now many different projects that are looking to solve this problem and in particular, how to get a more efficient operating system. In this report, we will be introducing two projects, the JX Operating System and JNode. Both of these projects aim to implement a Java operating system as their goal. The JX Operating System project is a university development research project at being developed at the University of Erlangen-Nurnberg in Germany while JNode is an open-source project developed by Ewout Prangsma and his team of developers. These two projects differ a lot in terms of their implementation as well as support and funding. But we will be concentrating on a brief technical introduction of these two OS and an illustration of our work when we ran the two operating systems. The JX Operating system Golm et al [1] at University of Erlangen-Nurnberg has developed an operating system almost completely written in java. The goal was to achieve good performance and to be able to benefit from the object-oriented and type safe from java. They claimed to reach about 50% performance of Unix in a raw test and about similar speed as Unix when there's a lot of I/O going on. The reason why they did this rather unconventional design is that they believe that an operating system that is dynamically compiled, as java byte codes are, can in the long run outperform traditional operating system.
    [Show full text]
  • Sealing OS Processes to Improve Dependability and Security
    MSR-TR-2006-51 This is a draft paper that is under submission. Please contact Galen Hunt for citation information. Sealing OS Processes to Improve Dependability and Security Galen Hunt, Mark Aiken, Paul Barham, Manuel Fähndrich, Chris Hawblitzel, Orion Hodson, James Larus, Steven Levi, Nick Murphy, Bjarne Steensgaard, David Tarditi, Ted Wobber, Brian Zill Microsoft Research Abstract On most modern operating systems, a process is a hardware-protected abstraction for executing potentially mutable code and data. Common features of processes include: dynamic code loading, dynamic code generation, access to cross-process shared memory, and a universal API. This paper argues that many of the dependability and security weaknesses of modern systems are exacerbated by this open process architecture. Moreover, this architecture impairs the ability of tools to analyze code statically, to improve its performance or dependability. By contrast, a sealed process architecture prohibits dynamic code loading, prohibits self-modifying code, prohibits shared memory, and replaces a universal API with a process-limited API. This paper describes an implementation of a sealed process architecture in the Singularity operating system, discusses its merits, and evaluates its impact. Among the benefits are: improved static program analysis, strong security guarantees, elimination of OS redundancies found in language runtimes such as the JVM and CLR, and better software engineering. 1. Introduction 1.1. Disadvantages of Open Processes The process, as a recognized operating system Although common, open processes are not “free.” abstraction, debuted in Multics [52] in the 1960s. This architecture has negative consequences for Multics processes included support for dynamic code dependability, correctness, security, and performance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Structure of a Type-Safe Operating System
    The Structure of a Type-Safe Operating System Der Technischen Fakultät der Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg zur Erlangung des Grades DOKTOR-INGENIEUR vorgelegt von Michael Golm Erlangen - 2002 Als Dissertation genehmigt von der Technischen Fakultät der Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg Tag der Einreichung: 16. 09. 2002 Tag der Promotion: 17. 12. 2002 Dekan: Prof. Dr. rer. nat. A. Winnacker Berichterstatter: Prof. Dr. rer. nat. F. Hofmann Michael Golm The Structure of a Type-Safe Operating System The architecture of traditional operating systems relies on address-based memory protection. To achieve flexibility at a low cost operating system research has recently started to explore alternative protection mechanisms, such as type safety. This dissertation presents an operating system architecture that completely replaces address-based protection with type-based protection. Replacing such an essential part of the system leads to a novel operating system architecture with im- proved robustness, reusability, configurability, scalability, and security. The dissertation describes not only the design of such a system but also its pro- totype implementation and the performance of initial applications, such as a file system, a web server, a data base management system, and a network file server. The prototype, which is called JX, uses Java bytecode as its type-safe instruction set and is able to run existing Java programs without modifications. The system is based on a modular microkernel, which is the only part of the system that is written in an unsafe language. Light-weight protection domains re- place the heavy-weight process concept of traditional systems. These domains are the unit of protection, resource management, and termination.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving the Reliability of Commodity Operating Systems
    Improving the Reliability of Commodity Operating Systems Michael M. Swift A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2005 Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Computer Science and Engineering University of Washington Graduate School This is to certify that I have examined this copy of a doctoral dissertation by Michael M. Swift and have found that it is complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the final examining committee have been made. Co-Chairs of Supervisory Committee: Henry M. Levy Brian N. Bershad Reading Committee: Henry M. Levy Brian N. Bershad John Zahorjan Date: In presenting this dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the doctoral degree at the University of Washington, I agree that the Library shall make its copies freely available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of this dissertation is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with “fair use” as prescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law. Requests for copying or reproduction of this dissertation may be referred to Proquest Information and Learning, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346, to whom the author has granted “the right to reproduce and sell (a) copies of the manuscript in microform and/or (b) printed copies of the manuscript made from microform.” Signature Date University of Washington Abstract Improving the Reliability of Commodity Operating Systems Michael M. Swift Co-Chairs of Supervisory Committee: Professor Henry M. Levy Computer Science and Engineering Associate Professor Brian N. Bershad Computer Science and Engineering This dissertation presents an architecture and mechanism for improving the reliability of com- modity operating systems by enabling them to tolerate component failures.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interpreted Operating System
    Faculty for Computer Science Operating Systems Group Master Thesis Summer semester 2018 PylotOS - an interpreted Operating System Submitted by: Naumann, Stefan [email protected] Programme of study: Master Informatik 3rd semester Matriculation number: XXXXXX Supervisors: Christine Jakobs Dr. Peter Tröger Prof. Dr. Matthias Werner Submission deadline: 11th July 2018 Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Preliminary Considerations 3 2.1. Textbook Operating System Architecture . 3 2.1.1. Processes and Interprocess Communication . 4 2.1.2. Driver Model . 6 2.2. Platform Considerations . 9 2.2.1. Intel x86 . 9 2.2.2. Raspberry Pi . 11 3. Existing Implementations 13 3.1. Related Work . 13 3.2. The C subroutine library . 15 3.2.1. Device drivers and files . 15 3.2.2. Process Management . 16 3.3. 4.3BSD . 16 3.3.1. Process Management . 16 3.3.2. Interprocess Communication . 19 3.3.3. Driver Architecture . 21 3.3.4. System Start-up . 23 3.4. Linux 2.6 . 26 3.4.1. Handling Interrupts and Exceptions . 26 3.4.2. Linux I/O Architecture and device drivers . 30 3.4.3. Levels of kernel support for a device . 33 3.5. Windows 2000 . 34 3.5.1. Interrupt Handling . 34 3.5.2. I/O System . 36 3.5.3. I/O Manager . 37 3.5.4. Structure of a Driver . 39 3.5.5. Plug and Play . 40 3.5.6. Power Manager . 41 3.5.7. I/O Data Structures (ntddk.h) . 42 3.6.JX ................................................... 43 3.6.1. Architectural Overview . 44 3.6.2.
    [Show full text]
  • A Java Operating System
    JIKESNODE: A JAVA OPERATING SYSTEM A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Master of Science in the Faculty of Science and Engineering 2005 By Georgios I. Gousios Department of Computer Science Contents Abstract 6 Declaration 7 Copyright 8 Acknowledgements 9 1 Introduction 10 1.1 Motivation and objectives . 10 1.2 Related work . 11 1.3 Organisation of the thesis . 13 2 Operating system architectures 14 2.1 Established architectures . 14 2.1.1 Monolithic kernels . 15 2.1.2 Microkernels . 16 2.2 The Javaos .............................. 18 2.2.1 Basic architecture . 19 2.2.2 System components . 21 2.2.3 Non-functional requirements . 23 3 The Nanokernel 26 3.1 The i386 architecture . 27 3.2 The grub boot loader . 30 3.3 Implementation . 32 4 The Jikes Research Virtual Machine 38 4.1 The JikesRVM architecture . 39 2 4.1.1 Runtime . 40 4.1.2 The boot image . 41 4.1.3 The build system . 42 4.2 Implementation . 43 4.2.1 Changes to the runtime . 43 4.2.2 The build system . 45 4.2.3 Changes to the VM ...................... 46 4.2.4 Not implemented functionality . 46 4.2.5 Runtime operation . 47 5 Merging the components 48 5.1 The JNode operating system . 48 5.1.1 Components of the JNode architecture . 48 5.1.2 Changes to JNode . 51 5.2 The classpath . 52 5.3 The build system . 54 5.3.1 Implementation . 55 5.3.2 The boot image . 56 5.3.3 Not implemented .
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 11 Related Work
    CHAPTER 11 Related Work This chapter compares the JX architecture to other projects that extend Java with capabilities that are important for operating systems, such as isolation of protection domains, inter-domain communica- tion, sharing between domains, resource accounting and user-defined resource management, reus- ability, scalability, and security. Our evaluation of the related systems is guided by a number of ques- tions: Isolation. How are protection domains implemented? How well can domains be isolated from each other? Can domains be completely confined? Can domains be terminated independently from each other? Can domains use different JDK implementations? Communication. Is fast inter-domain communication possible? Does communication creates inter- dependencies between protection domains? Sharing. Is code and/or data sharing possible? How transparent can code be shared? How are special cases, such as static fields or synchronized methods, treated? Resource accounting. How exact is resource accounting and how well does the system cope with specific problems? When accounting CPU time a specific problem is the considerations of garbage collection time and time spent in interrupt handlers. When accounting memory specific problems are the account for stack and thread control block usage. User-defined resource management. Is it possible to use different garbage collectors in different domains and are the GC runs independent from each other. Does the system provide any support for the implementation of independent garbage collection? Is it possible to use different schedulers for different protection domains? Reusability. How does the addition of protection domains affect reusability? Scalability. How expensive are protection domains. Is it possible to efficiently create small as well as large domains? Security.
    [Show full text]