DOCSLIB.ORG

Component Evolution and Versioning State of the Art

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Component Evolution and Versioning State of the Art ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes Page 1 January 2005 Volume 30 Number 1 Component Evolution and Versioning State of the Art Alexander Stuckenholz FernUniversitat¨ in Hagen Lehrgebiet fur¨ Datenverarbeitungstechnik Universitatsstrasse¨ 27, 58084 Hagen, Germany [email protected] October 26, 2004 Abstract the kind of information about the running system as well as the lifecycle of the component in which the mechanisms are applied. Emerging component-based software development architectures The most frequently used technology in this area is versioning. promise better re-use of software components, greater flexibility, Versioning mechanisms are typically used to distinguish evolv- scalability and higher quality of services. But like any other piece ing software artifacts over time. As we will show in section 4 on of software too, software components are hardly perfect, when be- page 4, these mechanisms play an important role in component ing created. Problems and bugs have to be fixed and new features based software development too. need to be added. This paper presents an overview of current versioning mecha- This paper analyzes the problem of component evolution and nisms and substitutability checks in the area of component based the incompatibilities which result during component upgrades. software development. In a comparison, these systems will be We present the state of the art in component versioning and com- evaluated against their usability in the case of component up- pare the different methods in component models, frameworks and grades. Here we come to the conclusions that the available so- programming languages. Special attention is put on the automa- lutions are not sufficient to reduce version conflicts in component tion of processes and tool support in this area. The concluding systems. To overcome this weakness, we are proposing an im- section sketches a possible solution of these problems we are cur- proved upgrade mechanism that can applied to all major compo- rently working on. nent models. This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 on the following page will focus on the ultimate problem of evolving components, its reasons and related works. 1 Introduction Section 3 on the next page will render more precisely the au- thors comprehension of the term software component. We illus- During the last years component based software development trate the linkage mechanisms between components, which influ- changed from a pure scientific research field to a widely used tech- ence their substitutability, and the problems that arise during com- nique [1]. A number of component models for different layers ponent upgrades. Further on an overview about versioning mech- (desktop, server) have been established [2–5]. After consolidation anisms, generally used terminology in this area and the semantics of standards and specifications in this area, it is now time to look of version numbers is given. at the problems that arise by the practical use of software compo- Section 4 on page 4 introduces a component based software nents in everyday projects. system, which is used as a running example in the next sections to Just like any other piece of software too, software components clarify the different versioning mechanisms. We compare a series are hardly perfect, when they are created [6]. Problems and bugs of component models, programming languages and other systems have to be fixed and new features need to be added [7]. Software which promise solutions to the upgrade problem by using partic- development generally may be defined as the process of creating ular versioning mechanisms. The author focuses on four main and propagating changes [8]. By this process, new versions of questions: software components come into existence. To take advantage of these updates, one has to deploy the new 1. Does the system have the ability to distinguish different ver- components into the systems that use them. Doing this, the main sions of the same component at all? question is: Does the system run with the new component, or is 2. How are syntactical and semantic changes detected and how the system negatively affected by the upgrade? [9] are these changes reflected in the version information? As we will show in the following, a series of different ap- proaches exist in this area (see section 4 on page 4). They vary 3. How is the compatibility and incompatibility between differ- in the component model that is used, the kind of meta informa- ent component versions detected and how is that reflected in tion about the component, which is used for compatibility checks, the version information? ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes Page 2 January 2005 Volume 30 Number 1 4. Will the provided mechanisms warn the component user of As long as this situation lasts, the advantages of component based incompatible upgrades and does the system provide solutions software development such as flexibility, scalability and higher for such situations? quality of services are abrogated. The problem of versioning and check for substitutability is therefore one of the most burdensome In section 5 on page 8 the results will be categorized and evalu- in this area. ated with special attention to the questions and the main problem. Special importance is attracted to the automation level of the used practises to minimize the burdens for component developers and 2.1 Related Work system administrators. System Evolution is the stepwise development of systems or mod- In section 6 on page 9 we will propose an advanced component els due to environment changes [12]. These environment changes upgrade system called intelligent component swapping that seizes are, e.g., the need for new functionality, changes in use cases, new and enhances a number of mechanisms in this area to minimize the conditions (laws), implementation of new technologies or major negative effects during component upgrades and to initiate coun- changes in the processed data. At the Fraunhofer Institute for teractive measures as automatic as possible. Software- and System Technology (ISST) the project Continuous is focusing on evolving systems [12–14], which use component based software development (CBS) as a base technology. 2 The Problem In general, Configuration Management (CM) is the discipline for organizing and controlling evolving systems [15]. Accord- Software components undergo dynamic evolution during which a ing to this definition, controlling component evolution is a sub- client component experiences the effects of modifications made discipline of CM. However, the term Software Configuration to a service component even though these occurred after the client Management (SCM) includes the creation phase of software. Pro- was built [10]. cedures like construction and team work are in the center of in- Dynamic evolution means that all characteristics of a compo- terest [16]. Component Evolution also includes managing the de- nent that are observable from external clients may change over ployment of components and system management. time. These characteristics are part of different contract levels. Class Evolution is defined as the process of evolving class hi- Beugnard et. al have identified four classes of contracts in the soft- erarchies in object oriented programming. Since almost all cur- ware component world (see [11]): basic or syntactic (1), behav- rent component models are based on object oriented develop- ioral (2), synchronization (3) and quantity (4). The higher the level ment, class evolution plays an important role in this area. [17] of contracts in which changes have been performed, the lower is distinguishes the categories Class Tailoring, Class Surgery, Class the chance to detect them. So far there are a couple of approaches Versioning and Class Reorganization as solutions for evolving to detect syntactical and only a few approaches to detect behav- classes. For component evolution especially versioning plays an ioral changes (see section 4 on page 4), but we are not aware of any important role. approaches that considers the level of synchronization or quantity. Whichever level of contract is affected by component changes, such changes are necessary in many situations. In many cases 3 Components, Models and Versioning bugfixes need to be enforced, which entail changes in the compo- nent’s implementation. In some cases the requirements, like the 3.1 Definitions required precision of results or the used types, may change over time, which causes changes at the interface level of the component A widely accepted definition of the term software component is next to its implementation. The simple addition of functionality is from Szyperski [18]. He defines software components as a coarse in most cases unproblematic. grained blackbox software element with contractually specified In the case of a component upgrade, problems may arise in the syntax and semantics on both the provided and required side of the interaction of the changed component and other components in interface. He claims that a software component can be deployed the system. In these situations of incompatibilities it may come to independently and is subject to composition by third parties. malbehavior of system parts or the crash of the whole system. The rules for the creation, composition and communication of This problem did not carry so much authority, because during individual components are defined by component models and put the last years the majority of components were created by those into operation by component frameworks. developers that also had the responsibility for the whole system. A component encapsulates specific knowledge which is acces- Hence incompatibilities could be removed on the spot. But the sible only by its provided interfaces (ip). Furthermore a com- problem will emerge in the future, because a growing number of ponent needs access to some general framework services and to components will be created by third persons (Off-The-Shelf Com- other components or services to work. These necessities are ex- ponents), who do not have control over the client systems and pressed by the components required interfaces (ir).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rhetorical Code Studies Revised Pages
    Revised Pages rhetorical code studies Revised Pages Sweetland Digital rhetoric collaborative Series Editors: Anne Ruggles Gere, University of Michigan Naomi Silver, University of Michigan The Sweetland Digital Rhetoric Collaborative Book Series publishes texts that investigate the multiliteracies of digitally mediated spaces both within academia as well as other contexts. Rhetorical Code Studies: Discovering Arguments in and around Code Kevin Brock Developing Writers in Higher Education: A Longitudinal Study Anne Ruggles Gere, Editor Sites of Translation: What Multilinguals Can Teach Us about Digital Writing and Rhetoric Laura Gonzales Rhizcomics: Rhetoric, Technology, and New Media Composition Jason Helms Making Space: Writing, Instruction, Infrastrucure, and Multiliteracies James P. Purdy and Dànielle Nicole DeVoss, Editors Digital Samaritans: Rhetorical Delivery and Engagement in the Digital Humanities Jim Ridolfo diGitalculturebooks, an imprint of the University of Michigan Press, is dedicated to publishing work in new media studies and the emerging field of digital humanities. Revised Pages Rhetorical Code Studies discovering arguments in and around code Kevin Brock University of Michigan Press ann arbor Revised Pages Copyright © 2019 by Kevin Brock Some rights reserved This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Note to users: A Creative Commons license is only valid when it is applied by the person or entity that holds rights to the licensed work. Works may contain components (e.g., photo- graphs, illustrations, or quotations) to which the rightsholder in the work cannot apply the license. It is ultimately your responsibility to independently evaluate the copyright status of any work or component part of a work you use, in light of your intended use.
    [Show full text]
  • Travstar1 V10.01.02-XXXX XXX
    Travstar1 v10.01.02-XXXX_XXX Fiscal Systems, Inc. 4946 Research Drive Huntsville, AL 35805 Office: (256) 772-8920 Help Desk: (800) 838-4549, Option 3 www.fis-cal.com Document Version History Version Description Approved Date 1.0 Initial Release for Version 9.00 KDS 15 JUL 09 1.1 Changed Patch and Update Instructions KDS 11 NOV 09 Annual Review 1.2 KDS 22 APR 10 Corrected Typographical Errors 1.3 Annual Review KDS 12 JUL 11 Annual Review Verified reference web links are valid 1.4 KDS 10 AUG 12 Updated web link on qualified QSAs Updated web link for PCI wireless guidelines Annual Review 12 JUN 13 1.5 Verified reference web links are valid KDS Added Log Review Instructions Annual Review 1.6 KDS 16 JUN 14 Verified reference web links are valid Annual Review Verified reference web links are valid 1.7 Updated Business Address NBJ 30 MAR 15 Updated Secure Access Control Added detailed Log Review Setup Instructions 1.8 Added Software Versioning Methodology NBJ 14 OCT 15 Added Required Ports/Services 1.9 Modified Log review Setup Instructions NBJ 19 OCT 15 Added Centralized Logging Updated Required Ports/Services 2.0 Updated Secure Remote Updates NBJ 02 FEB 16 Updated Auditing and Centralized Logging 2.1 Updated Software Versioning Methodology NBJ 17 Feb 16 Full Certification 2.2 BTH 5 May 17 Updated Software Versioning Methodology Updated Introduction Updated Remote Access to “Multi-factor” 2.3 Revised Version number BTH 22 JUN 17 Updated “Travstar1 POS” to just “Travstar1 ” for clarity. Minor wording changes throughout for clarity Adjusted Wording of PCI-DSS requirements to match PCI-DSS 3.2 Updated network connections to clearly define 2.4 BTH 02 AUG 17 every connection Updated references to stored cardholder data to state that it is only stored during preauthorization.
    [Show full text]
  • Book of Abstracts
    The Association for Literary and Lingustic Computing The Association for Computers and the Humanities Society for Digital Humanities — Société pour l’étude des médias interactifs Digital Humanities 2008 The 20th Joint International Conference of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, and the Association for Computers and the Humanities and The 1st Joint International Conference of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, the Association for Computers and the Humanities, and the Society for Digital Humanities — Société pour l’étude des médias interactifs University of Oulu, Finland 24 – 29 June, 2008 Conference Abstracts International Programme Committee • Espen Ore, National Library of Norway, Chair • Jean Anderson, University of Glasgow, UK • John Nerbonne, University of Groningen, The Netherlands • Stephen Ramsay, University of Nebraska, USA • Thomas Rommel, International Univ. Bremen, Germany • Susan Schreibman, University of Maryland, USA • Paul Spence, King’s College London, UK • Melissa Terras, University College London, UK • Claire Warwick, University College London, UK, Vice Chair Local organizers • Lisa Lena Opas-Hänninen, English Philology • Riikka Mikkola, English Philology • Mikko Jokelainen, English Philology • Ilkka Juuso, Electrical and Information Engineering • Toni Saranpää, English Philology • Tapio Seppänen, Electrical and Information Engineering • Raili Saarela, Congress Services Edited by • Lisa Lena Opas-Hänninen • Mikko Jokelainen • Ilkka Juuso • Tapio Seppänen ISBN: 978-951-42-8838-8 Published by English Philology University of Oulu Cover design: Ilkka Juuso, University of Oulu © 2008 University of Oulu and the authors. _____________________________________________________________________________Digital Humanities 2008 Introduction On behalf of the local organizers I am delighted to welcome you to the 25th Joint International Conference of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing (ALLC) and the Association for Computers and the Humanities (ACH) at the University of Oulu.
    [Show full text]
  • Chrome, Edge, and Firefox Integration
    Blue Prism 7.0 Chrome, Edge, and Firefox Integration Document Revision: 1.0 Blue Prism 7.0 | Chrome, Edge, and Firefox Integration Trademarks and Copyright Trademarks and Copyright The information contained in this document is the proprietary and confidential information of Blue Prism Limited and should not be disclosed to a third-party without the written consent of an authorized Blue Prism representative. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying without the written permission of Blue Prism Limited. © Blue Prism Limited, 2001 – 2021 © “Blue Prism”, the “Blue Prism” logo and Prism device are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Blue Prism Limited and its affiliates. All Rights Reserved. All trademarks are hereby acknowledged and are used to the benefit of their respective owners. Blue Prism is not responsible for the content of external websites referenced by this document. Blue Prism Limited, 2 Cinnamon Park, Crab Lane, Warrington, WA2 0XP, United Kingdom. Registered in England: Reg. No. 4260035. Tel: +44 370 879 3000. Web: www.blueprism.com Commercial in Confidence Page ii Blue Prism 7.0 | Chrome, Edge, and Firefox Integration Contents Contents TrademarksContents and Copyright iiiii Chrome, Edge, and Firefox integration 4 Browser extension compatibility 4 Chrome browser extension 5 Prerequisites 5 Install the Chrome browser extension using the Blue Prism installer 6 Install from the Bluecommand Prism line installer 67 Install the
    [Show full text]
  • Open Source As an Alternative to Commercial Software
    OPEN-SOURCE AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE Final Report 583 Prepared by: Sean Coleman 2401 E Rio Salado Pkwy. #1179 Tempe, Arizona 85281 March 2009 Prepared for: Arizona Department of Transportation 206 South 17th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names which may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. Government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-AZ-09-583 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date: March, 2009 Open-Source as an Alternative to Commercial Software 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors: 8. Performing Organization Sean Coleman Report No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Sean Coleman 11. Contract or Grant No. 2401 E Rio Salado Pkwy, #1179 SPR-583 Tempe, AZ 85281 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period Arizona Department of Transportation Covered 206 S. 17th Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85007 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Project Managers: Frank DiBugnara, John Semmens, and Steve Rost 15. Supplementary Notes 16.
    [Show full text]
  • Idiomatic and Reproducible Software Builds Using Containers for Reliable Computing
    Master’s Thesis Idiomatic and Reproducible Software Builds using Containers for Reliable Computing Jonas Weber April 18, 2016 arXiv:1702.02999v1 [cs.SE] 9 Feb 2017 Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Faculty of Engineering Department of Computer Science Bioinformatics Eingereichte Masterarbeit gemäß den Bestimmungen der Prüfungsordnung der Albert-Ludwidgs-Universität Freiburg für den Studiengang Master of Science (M.Sc.) Informatik vom 19. August 2005. Bearbeitungszeitraum 12. Januar 2016 - 12. Juli 2016 Gutachter Prof. Dr. Rolf Backofen Head of the Group Chair for Bioinformatics Zweitgutachter Prof. Dr. Christoph Scholl Director Chair of Operating Systems Betreuer Dr. Björn Grüning Abstract Containers as the unit of application delivery are the ‘next big thing’ in the software development world. They enable developers to create an executable image containing an application bundled with all its dependencies which a user can run inside a controlled environment with virtualized resources. Complex workflows for business-critical applications and research environments require a high degree of reproducibility which can be accomplished using uniquely identified images as units of computation. It will be shown in this thesis that the most widely used approaches to create an image from pre-existing software or from source code lack the ability to provide idiomaticity in their use of the technology as well as proper reproducibility safe-guards. In the first part, existing approaches are formalized and discussed and a new approach is introduced. The approaches are then evaluated using a suite of three different examples. This thesis provides a framework for formalizing operations involving a layered file system, containers and images, and a novel approach to the creation of images using utility containers and layer donning fulfilling the idiomaticity and reproducibility criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Development a Practical Approach!
    Software Development A Practical Approach! Hans-Petter Halvorsen https://www.halvorsen.blog https://halvorsen.blog Software Development A Practical Approach! Hans-Petter Halvorsen Software Development A Practical Approach! Hans-Petter Halvorsen Copyright © 2020 ISBN: 978-82-691106-0-9 Publisher Identifier: 978-82-691106 https://halvorsen.blog ii Preface The main goal with this document: • To give you an overview of what software engineering is • To take you beyond programming to engineering software What is Software Development? It is a complex process to develop modern and professional software today. This document tries to give a brief overview of Software Development. This document tries to focus on a practical approach regarding Software Development. So why do we need System Engineering? Here are some key factors: • Understand Customer Requirements o What does the customer needs (because they may not know it!) o Transform Customer requirements into working software • Planning o How do we reach our goals? o Will we finish within deadline? o Resources o What can go wrong? • Implementation o What kind of platforms and architecture should be used? o Split your work into manageable pieces iii • Quality and Performance o Make sure the software fulfills the customers’ needs We will learn how to build good (i.e. high quality) software, which includes: • Requirements Specification • Technical Design • Good User Experience (UX) • Improved Code Quality and Implementation • Testing • System Documentation • User Documentation • etc. You will find additional resources on this web page: http://www.halvorsen.blog/documents/programming/software_engineering/ iv Information about the author: Hans-Petter Halvorsen The author currently works at the University of South-Eastern Norway.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Humanities Quarterly: Digital Editions and Version Numbering 4/2/21, 1:41 PM
    DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly: Digital Editions and Version Numbering 4/2/21, 1:41 PM DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly 2020 Volume 14 Number 2 Digital Editions and Version Numbering Paul A. Broyles <pabroyle_at_ncsu_dot_edu>, North Carolina State University Abstract Digital editions are easily modified after they are first published — a state of affairs that poses challenges both for long-term scholarly reference and for various forms of electronic distribution and analysis. This article argues that producers of digital editions should assign meaningful version numbers to their editions and update those version numbers with each change, allowing both humans and computers to know when resources have been modified and how significant the changes are. As an examination of versioning practices in the software industry reveals, version numbers are not neutral descriptors but social products intended for use in specific contexts, and the producers of digital editions must consider how version numbers will be used in developing numbering schemes. It may be beneficial to version different parts of an edition separately, and in particular to version the data objects or content of an edition independently from the environment in which it is displayed. The article concludes with a case study of the development of a versioning policy for the Piers Plowman Electronic Archive, and includes an appendix surveying how a selection of digital editions handle the problem of recording and communicating changes. Introduction Digital editions can change long after publication: errors can be corrected; new materials can be added; the scholarship can be updated. The fact 1 that such changes can occur on an ongoing basis is both one of the great potentials and one of the great terrors of digital scholarly resources.
    [Show full text]
  • SOFTWARE VERSIONING in the CLOUD Towards Automatic Source Code Management
    SOFTWARE VERSIONING IN THE CLOUD Towards Automatic Source Code Management Filippo Gioachin∗, Qianhui Liang∗, Yuxia Yao∗ and Bu-Sung Lee∗† ∗Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore †Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Republic of Singapore Keywords: Software development, Cloud computing, Version control system, Revisions, Collaboration. Abstract: With the introduction of cloud computing and Web 2.0, many applications are moving to the cloud environ- ment. Version control systems have also taken a first step towards this direction. Nevertheless, existing systems are either client-server oriented or completely distributed, and they don’t match exactly the nature of the cloud. In this paper we propose a new cloud version control system focusing on the requirements imposed by cloud computing, that we identified as: concurrent editing, history rewrite, accountability, scalability, security, and fault tolerance. Our plan is to tackle these issues in a systematic way, and we present in this paper an overview of the solutions organized in three separate layers: access API, logical structure, and physical storage. 1 INTRODUCTION to detect more quickly why or how certain bugs have been introduced, and therefore to correct them more With the advent of cloud computing, and the ubiq- easily. uitous integration of network-based devices, online In order to be effective for the tasks described, the collaboration has become a key component in many revision history needs to be clean and clear. If too aspects of people’s life and their work experience. few revisions are present, each exposing a very large Users expect their data to be accessible from every- set of modifications, the reader may have a hard time where, and proximity to other users in the real world to understand exactly which changes produce certain is no longer essential for collaboration.
    [Show full text]
  • Versioning for Software As a Service in the Context of Multi-Tenancy
    Versioning for Software as a Service in the context of Multi-Tenancy Maximilian Schneider and Johan Uhle July 2013 University of Potsdam, Hasso-Plattner-Institute Prof.-Dr.-Helmert-Str. 2-3, 14482 Potsdam, Germany {maximilian.schneider,johan.uhle}@student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de Abstract. In this report we present our findings on how to provide different versions of a SaaS to multiple tenants at the same time. We present a categorization of versioning approaches based on the layer of the SaaS application stack they are implemented in. We then evaluate them against our own experiences in developing SaaS applications. Keywords: computer science, cloud computing, multi-tenancy, saas, versioning, web application 1 Introduction The recent trend of providing Software as Software as a Service (SaaS) instead via the classical retail channels has changed the way that software is versioned. Previously software was released infrequently and the customer would choose when to switch to a different version after it was released. But today a Software as a Service provider is able to release software updates continuously and deploy them without further action from the customer. Improving on that, providers may even choose to provide multiple versions at the same time in order to compare these. A common criterion is testing changes in the user behavior towards business goals. An example for this is A/B testing [7]. In these test a subset of the provider's customers is confronted with a different version of the interface. This enables the provider to measure statistically which influence the difference between the versions has on the business based on the behavior of the different split groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Certification Test Plan – Modification
    Certification Test Plan – Modification Document Number: HRT-17002-CTP-01 Version 1.1 Prepared for: Vendor Name Hart InterCivic (Hart) Vendor System Verity Voting 2.2.1 EAC Application No. HRT 01-17 Vendor Address 15500 Wells Port Drive, Austin, TX 78728 Prepared by: 4720 Independence St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 303-422-1566 www.SLICompliance.com Accredited by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) for Selected Voting System Test Methods or Services Modification Test Plan v1.1 Page 1 of 31 Report No. HRT-17002-CTP-01 Template Rev 2015-02 Hart InterCivic Verity Voting 2.2.1 Modification Test Plan Copyright 2017 by SLI Compliance SM , a Division of Gaming Laboratories International, LLC Revision History Date Release Author Revision Summary February 1.0 M. Santos Initial Submittal 2nd , 2017 February 1.1 M. Santos Updates to address EAC comments 21 st , 2017 Disclaimer The information reported herein must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by NVLAP, NIST, or any agency of the Federal Government. Trademarks • SLI is a registered trademark of SLI Compliance. • All products and company names are used for identification purposes only and may be trademarks of their respective owners. Modification Test Plan v1.1 Page 2 of 31 Document No. HRT-17002-CTP-01 Template Rev 2015-02 Hart InterCivic Verity Voting 2.2.1 Modification Test Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATION TEST PLAN – MODIFICATION ....................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 DESCRIPTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE CERTIFIED SYSTEM .................................................................... 5 1.1.1 Definition of the Baseline Certified System ............................................................................. 5 1.1.2 Modifications ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices for Artifact Versioning in Service-Oriented Systems
    Best Practices for Artifact Versioning in Service-Oriented Systems Marc Novakouski Grace Lewis William Anderson Jeff Davenport January 2012 TECHNICAL NOTE CMU/SEI-2011-TN-009 Research, Technology, and System Solutions Program http://www.sei.cmu.edu Copyright 2012 Carnegie Mellon University. This material is based upon work funded and supported by the United States Department of Defense under Contract No. FA8721-05-C-0003 with Carnegie Mellon University for the operation of the Software Engineering Institute, a federally funded research and development center. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Defense. This report was prepared for the SEI Administrative Agent ESC/CAA 20 Schilling Circle, Building 1305, 3rd Floor Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-2125 NO WARRANTY THIS CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY AND SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE MATERIAL IS FURNISHED ON AN “AS-IS” BASIS. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AS TO ANY MATTER INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABILITY, EXCLUSIVITY, OR RESULTS OBTAINED FROM USE OF THE MATERIAL. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY DOES NOT MAKE ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO FREEDOM FROM PATENT, TRADEMARK, OR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. This material has been approved for public release and unlimited distribution except as restricted below. Internal use:* Permission to reproduce this material and to prepare derivative works from this material for internal use is granted, provided the copyright and “No Warranty” statements are included with all reproductions and derivative works.
    [Show full text]