Article Preview
Top1. Introduction
Software system development methods such as structural, object-oriented, or component-based adopt computing constructs of subroutine, object, or component respectively as main building blocks. These constructs have been examined in different computing paradigms such as structured programming (Clemens et al., 1985; Dijkstra, 1968; Parnas, 1972), object-orientation (Booch, 1986; Gamma et al., 1995), and component-based (Clemens, 1995; Szyperski, 1997). Each of these computing paradigms has made a breakthrough in improving the field of software development by stressing out reuse, through separation of concerns and information hiding.
Service-Orientation (SO) constitutes an evolution of these paradigms; and a response to the growing needs for greater reuse, integration, and composition of IT services to support business flexibility and agility (Baghdadi, 2006; Cummins, 2010; Erl, 2008; Welke et al., 2011). Service Science (SS) aspires to shape the concept service with fundamental, generic properties (Spohrer et al., 2008), whereas, SO shapes the construct service with specific properties, from a computational perspective, and provides a set of design principles (Erl, 2008). These properties and principles enforce loose coupling and interoperability of services in addition to the principles of separation of concerns and information hiding, in order to allow services to be the basic components of service-oriented solutions, built with respect to an architectural style that is Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA).
Yet, building these solutions requires a new engineering approach; referred to as Service-Oriented Software Engineering (SOSE). It mainly concerns with developing methods that encompass (i) the engineering of the services as basic components, (ii) the engineering of compositions of services as composites, (iii) the management of services and compositions (Papazoglou et al., 2011), (iv) the quality of both services and compositions (Bianco et al., 2007), and (v) the engineering of business services for, at least, a defined SOA maturity (Welke et al., 2011).
SOSE has entailed, as expected, provision of new methods from both academia and industry. Most of the well-known methods, such as SOAD (Zimmermann et al., 2004), SDLC (Papazoglou and van den Heuvel, 2006), Sensoria (Wirsing et al., 2008), SOAF (Erradi et al., 2006), SOMA (Arsanjani et al., 2008), Erl’s methodology (Erl, 2009), claim their compliance with SOSE, namely a delivery strategy from different alternatives in order to comply with SO and SOA. Yet, comparison frameworks such as those developed by Baghdadi (2012a), Gu and Lago (2011), and Kohlborn et al. (2009) show that the output of these methods, when applied, does not fully comply with SO and SOA. Indeed:
- •
They do not consider SOA maturity models, which may guide the type of services and the service sourcing (Welke et al., 2011).
- •
They do not explicit each role in SOA. Their respective process concentrates on the provider of the service, while the consumers and the registry not only have a role but also constrain SOA (Baghdadi, 2013).
- •
They vary significantly in terms of their coverage to SOSE aspects. Some methods cover only services as components, whereas others cover components and composites. Very few of them attempt to cover business services (Arsanjani et al., 2008; Kohlborn et al., 2009).
- •
They vary in their delivery strategies such as meet-in-the-middle, top-down, bottom-up, or green-field (Papazoglou and van der Heuvel, 2006).