Software assurance practices for mobile applications

Mobile software applications have to cope with a particular environment that involves small size, limited resources, high autonomy requirements, competitive business models and many other challenges. To provide development guidelines that respond to these needs, several practices have been introduced; however, it is not clear how these guidelines may contribute to solve the issues present in the mobile domain. Furthermore, the rapid evolution of the mobile ecosystem challenges many of the premises upon which the proposed practices were designed. In this paper, we present a survey of the literature on software assurance practices for mobile applications, with the objective of describing them and assessing their contribution and success. We identified, organized and reviewed a body of research that spans in three levels: software development processes, software product assurance practices, and software implementation practices. By carrying out this literature survey, we reviewed the different approaches that researchers on Software Engineering have provided to address the needs that raise in the mobile software development arena. Moreover, we review the evolution of these practices, identifying how the constant changes and modernization of the mobile execution environment has impacted the methods proposed in the literature. Finally, we introduced discussion on the application of these practices in a real productive setting, opening an area for further research that may determine if practitioners have followed the proposed assurance paradigms.     

A self‐scalable load injection service

Load testing of applications is an important and costly activity for software provider companies. Classical solutions are very difficult to set up statically, and their cost is prohibitive in terms of both human and hardware resources. Virtualized cloud computing platforms provide new opportunities for stressing an application's scalability, by providing a large range of flexible and less expensive (pay‐per‐use model) computation units. On the basis of these advantages, load testing solutions could be provided on demand in the cloud. This paper describes a Benchmark‐as‐a‐Service solution that automatically scales the load injection platform and facilitates its setup according to load profiles. Our approach is based on: (i) virtualization of the benchmarking platform to create self‐scaling injectors; (ii) online calibration to characterize the injector's capacity and impact on the benched application; and (iii) a provisioning solution to appropriately scale the load injection platform ahead of time. We also report experiments on a benchmark illustrating the benefits of this system in terms of cost and resource reductions. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Is the List of Incomplete Open Cubes Complete?

Variations of Incomplete Open Cubes is the major project by the twentieth-century conceptual artist Sol LeWitt. In this paper we interpret the enumerative component of the project as embeddings of graphs. This formulation permits use of an algorithm to check the completeness of the list of the structures produced by the artist. Our conclusion is that the artist found the correct number of structures (that is, 122), but that his list contains a mistake in the presentation of a pair of incomplete cubes, a discovery that appears not to have been noted before.     

Note of clarification on Scholten and Sherman (2006): Erratum.

Reports an error in "Tradeoffs and Theory: The Double-Mediation Model" by Marc Scholten and Steven J. Sherman (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2006 May, Vol 135[2], 237-261). This article was inadvertently printed with the incorrect title. The original title was "Tradeoffs and Conflict: The Double-Mediation Model." This title highlights the relation between tradeoffs and conflict as investigated by the authors and accounted for by their model. However, readers are asked to refer to the article by the title with which it was printed to facilitate its retrieval.. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2006-06642-006.) Most theories of decision making suggest that, when options imply tradeoffs between their attributes, conflict increases as tradeoff size increases, because greater sacrifices are to be incurred in choosing one option instead of another. An alternative view is that conflict decreases as tradeoff size increases, because stronger arguments can be made for any decision. The authors propose a unified model, the double-mediation model, which combines the mediating effects of sacrifice and argumentation. Our model generally predicts an inverse U-shaped relation between tradeoff size and conflict. Results support this prediction. Also, when the decision situation increases the mediating effect of sacrifice relative to that of argumentation, the relation between tradeoff size and conflict changes in an upward direction; conversely, when the decision situation increases the mediating effect of argumentation relative to that of sacrifice, the relation changes in a downward direction. Results support these predictions as well. Commonalities and differences between our model and other formulations are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)