Best online essay writer
We have thus far assumed that each evolution style is designed from scratch, in isolation. But it is reasonable to want to define a new evolution style by building on an existing one—or more specifically, by specializing an existing one. Although this is a sensible idea, there are many questions about how to implement it. How should the evolution elements in a substyle relate to the evolution elements in a base style?
Would it be better to have some compositional model rather than an inheritance-based design? Can a substyle delete or modify elements in a base style, or merely supplement them? It is very easy to define an evolution style so high-level and nebulous that it is of very little practical benefit.
A partial solution to this dilemma is the one mentioned above: an inheritance model for evolution styles. With inheritance, we could define a family of related evolution styles, with more specific styles inheriting from more general ones. How should a library of evolution styles be maintained and used? Evolution styles may indeed be effective at encapsulating reusable knowledge about domains best online essay writer of evolution—presuming an architect has access to appropriate evolution styles in the first place. One might imagine software companies maintaining evolution style repositories, or global evolution style repositories available online. But what metadata do we need to have to make such repositories easily searchable? By what kind of taxonomy can we meaningfully categorize evolution styles? Can we devise ratings systems to help architects distinguish between good and bad styles? The elements in a typical evolution style will therefore have a lot in common. Currently, however, these relationships are not enforced in any way, nor even well understood. Ideally, we would like some way to guarantee the consistency of the style—to make sure that the architectural properties that an evaluation function is reasoning about are the same ones that are being set by the operators. While these serve as useful proofs of concept and help to demonstrate the implementability of the approach, they are not nearly mature or complete enough to be used by practitioners in their present state. A great deal of tool work remains to be done, and a number of significant challenges remain as well.
Of course, some of this is just a matter of engineering effort—putting in the work to realize the vision we have laid out. But there are also significant research questions that have not yet been answered with respect to tool development.
Automation is very important for developing practical architecture evolution best online essay writer tools. But there is more that can be done to improve these methods, and there are other areas where automation would also be helpful. For example, a very useful feature would be semiautomated creation of evolution operators, in which the user defines the structural transformations that an operator entails by example, and a tool produces a formal operator definition. In the MagicDraw tool work, we discovered a number of challenges in implementing our approach as a plug-in to an existing architecture modeling framework. These challenges will need to be resolved to make a full implementation practical. How can we support an evolution graph definition work flow that makes sense to the user? An evolution graph is a simple thing in principle, but actually defining one is a somewhat intricate process.
Transitions leading to intermediate states are defined in terms of a series of operators, each with its own structural effects and 162 8. For this model to be accessible to the user, it has to be presented in a sensible way. One possibility is a transition specification mode, in which the user can see the effects of operators as they are applied and composed together to form a transition.
However, in our MagicDraw tool work, we found that such a feature was very difficult to implement in practice due to the limitations of the modeling tool API. How can we best maintain the consistency of the evolution model? In a complete evolution model in help with term papers which all evolutionary transitions are defined in terms of the operators that compose them, the transitional states are overspecified. Each of these evolution paths can be understood structurally as the composition of the operators that make up best online essay writer its transitions. If the structural transformations entailed by one path produce a different architectural state than those entailed by another path, there is a model inconsistency. In theory, this does not present a serious problem. We simply declare by fiat that an evolution graph must be consistent. If the evolution graph is defined by hand, how do we get the user to define the paths in such a way that consistency is guaranteed? If an inconsistency does arise, how do we report it in a way that makes sense to the user? If the evolution graph is defined automatically by a planner, how do we ensure the consistency best online essay writer of the generated paths? If the user wishes to modify a generated path, how do we reconcile the other paths to achieve consistency? Although the issue of model consistency seems conceptually simple, there are daunting research challenges just below the surface. As a result, there are many outstanding questions about how easy it is for practitioners to use the approach, and how the approach may be made more easily usable.
Can practitioners actually specify these evolution elements in the way we have prescribed, or are our specification languages too arcane for practical use? But still, someone needs to do the specifying, so it had better be doable with a modest amount of training.
How sat essay writing help can we display an evolution graph in a way that facilitates understanding and easy access to information? How can we display an evolution graph in a best online essay writer way that makes sense to the user? It is even less clear how best to represent an evolution transition in terms of its operators in such a way that the user can easily understand and manipulate those operators. Indeed, the problem of understanding is all the more acute when the person using the evolution style is not the person who designed buy school papers it. How can we represent evolution elements to users in an understandable way? How can we present information about the operator to users in a way that helps them to understand its effects and its preconditions?
But there are significant technical challenges in generating such a visualization. Similar questions apply to constraints and evaluation functions. How can we localize constraint violations so that the user knows what to fix?