领域驱动模型的WEB软件系统设计研究

首先分析了J2EE3层架构的特性及局限,说明了领域驱动设计模型中的充血模型的优势。通过运用最新JDKI．7及Tomcat的相应改造,设计出能实现以充血模型结构为基础的新型WEB系统开发框架,并通过一简单实例说明架构如何支持系统开发。     

软件组件技术在欧特克产品中的应用

软件组件技术是一些可执行单元,可以通过独立的开发和配置,然后整合到各个独立的软件系统中去,是软件系统内被标识、符合某种标准要求的组成部分。针对欧特克用户对软件使用的新需求,通过对用户工作流程以及产业发展的分析,提出了使用组件技术的解决方案,论述了以软件组件技术为核心的解决方案,在欧特克产品实施中的设计、实现过程。     

软件单元测试应用研究及案例分析

单元测试是软件测试过程的第一站,高质量的单元测试是软件质量保证的必要条件,本文就单元测试的概念、测试类型及规程作了简单的阐述,同时就单元测试进行了案例分析。     

基于RTLinux的开放式软件PLC的研究*

开放式控制技术是工业控制技术的发展趋势之一,软件PLC是开放式控制系统的重要组成部分。开放式控制系统实现的一条重要途径就是充分利用PC的软硬件资源,最大限度地利用软件实现控制功能。通过软件分层与数据开放相结合的方法,在RTLinux下设计的开放式软件PLC就是这种思想体现。     

体积成形有限元模拟软件CASFORM的开发研究

简要介绍了作者自主开发的体积成形有限元模拟软件CASFORM及其关键技术，并给出了大量的实例分析。CASFORM主要由前处理模块，有限元分析模块，后处理模块，有限元网格生成模块和网格再划分及数据传递模块以及材料数据库和模拟数据库等构成，该软件能够分析各种体积成形工艺，包括锻造、挤压、拉拔等。能够预测缺陷的生成，验证和优化工艺/模具设计方案，该软件既能模拟等温成形过程，也可以模拟非等温成形过程，即可进行单工位成形分析，也可进行多工位成形分析。该软件界面友好，使用方便，可靠性和自动化程度高，是模具和工艺设计方案验证和优化的有力工具。     

基于LabVIEW软件的虚拟数字超声探伤仪设计

传统的仪器一般开发周期较长,分析测试的精度低、成本高。虚拟仪器是利用计算机显示器的显示功能来模拟传统仪器的控制面板,以多种形式输出检测结果;利用软件功能实现数字信号的运算、分析和处理;利用输入/输出(I/O)接口设备完成信号的采集、测量与调试,从而完成各种测试功能的一种计算机仪器系统。采用LabVIEW应用软件对数字式超声探伤仪面板和部分功能进行设计与构建,并实现其相关功能。     

线阵电荷耦合器技术在自动测长系统中的应用

介绍用线阵电荷耦合器件(CCD)技术设计的型材在线实时测量系统。采用粗测和精测相结合的方法，解决了较大长度范围内精确测量问题。详细介绍动态在线非接触式测控系统的基本工作原理及软硬件组成。实测结果表明其测量精度高、效果好，能满足快速流水线的现场检测。     

Testing scientific software: A systematic literature review

ContextScientific software plays an important role in critical decision making, for example making weather predictions based on climate models, and computation of evidence for research publications. Recently, scientists have had to retract publications due to errors caused by software faults. Systematic testing can identify such faults in code.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify specific challenges, proposed solutions, and unsolved problems faced when testing scientific software.MethodWe conducted a systematic literature survey to identify and analyze relevant literature. We identified 62 studies that provided relevant information about testing scientific software.ResultsWe found that challenges faced when testing scientific software fall into two main categories: (1) testing challenges that occur due to characteristics of scientific software such as oracle problems and (2) testing challenges that occur due to cultural differences between scientists and the software engineering community such as viewing the code and the model that it implements as inseparable entities. In addition, we identified methods to potentially overcome these challenges and their limitations. Finally we describe unsolved challenges and how software engineering researchers and practitioners can help to overcome them.ConclusionsScientific software presents special challenges for testing. Specifically, cultural differences between scientist developers and software engineers, along with the characteristics of the scientific software make testing more difficult. Existing techniques such as code clone detection can help to improve the testing process. Software engineers should consider special challenges posed by scientific software such as oracle problems when developing testing techniques.     

Global software testing under deadline pressure: Vendor-side experiences

ContextIn the era of globally-distributed software engineering, the practice of global software testing (GST) has witnessed increasing adoption. Although there have been ethnographic studies of the development aspects of global software engineering, there have been fewer studies of GST, which, to succeed, can require dealing with unique challenges.ObjectiveTo address this limitation of existing studies, we conducted, and in this paper, report the findings of, a study of a vendor organization involved in one kind of GST practice: outsourced, offshored software testing.MethodWe conducted an ethnographically-informed study of three vendor-side testing teams over a period of 2 months. We used methods, such as interviews and participant observations, to collect the data and the thematic-analysis approach to analyze the data.FindingsOur findings describe how the participant test engineers perceive software testing and deadline pressures, the challenges that they encounter, and the strategies that they use for coping with the challenges. The findings reveal several interesting insights. First, motivation and appreciation play an important role for our participants in ensuring that high-quality testing is performed. Second, intermediate onshore teams increase the degree of pressure experienced by the participant test engineers. Third, vendor team participants perceive productivity differently from their client teams, which results in unproductive-productivity experiences. Lastly, participants encounter quality-dilemma situations for various reasons.ConclusionThe study findings suggest the need for (1) appreciating test engineers’ efforts, (2) investigating the team structure’s influence on pressure and the GST practice, (3) understanding culture’s influence on other aspects of GST, and (4) identifying and addressing quality-dilemma situations.     

Systematic analyses and comparison of development performance and product quality of Incremental Process and Agile Process

ContextAlthough Agile software development models have been widely used as a base for the software project life-cycle since 1990s, the number of studies that follow a sound empirical method and quantitatively reveal the effect of using these models over Traditional models is scarce.ObjectiveThis article explains the empirical method of and the results from systematic analyses and comparison of development performance and product quality of Incremental Process and Agile Process adapted in two projects of a middle-size, telecommunication software development company. The Incremental Process is an adaption of the Waterfall Model whereas the newly introduced Agile Process is a combination of the Unified Software Development Process, Extreme Programming, and Scrum.MethodThe method followed to perform the analyses and comparison is benefited from the combined use of qualitative and quantitative methods. It utilizes; GQM Approach to set measurement objectives, CMMI as the reference model to map the activities of the software development processes, and a pre-defined assessment approach to verify consistency of process executions and evaluate measure characteristics prior to quantitative analysis.ResultsThe results of the comparison showed that the Agile Process had performed better than the Incremental Process in terms of productivity (79%), defect density (57%), defect resolution effort ratio (26%), Test Execution V&V Effectiveness (21%), and effort prediction capability (4%). These results indicate that development performance and product quality achieved by following the Agile Process was superior to those achieved by following the Incremental Process in the projects compared.ConclusionThe acts of measurement, analysis, and comparison enabled comprehensive review of the two development processes, and resulted in understanding their strengths and weaknesses. The comparison results constituted objective evidence for organization-wide deployment of the Agile Process in the company.