Feeds

Firing up the Erudine engine

Building with behaviour

Maximizing your infrastructure through virtualization

This is the next article in our occasional series on new, more formal (mathematically-based) approaches to system development. The first article (here), looked at Bayesian analysis and formal methods (which are only "new" to the general development space, of course).

This article looks at a tool, the Erudine executable behaviour engine, which uses the mathematical modelling of behaviour as a basis for systems development. Unfortunately (or, perhaps, fortunately), Erudine keeps its math a secret, so I can't say much about it – it usually sells by solving intractable development problems in a proof-of-concept, so one can probably assume that the math works.

Erudine automates the elucidation of system behaviours (expressed in the form of rules) and builds up a model of a system, which incorporates automatic consistency and completeness testing, and which can be executed in production. It suits problems with well-defined inputs and outputs (rather than algorithmic problems, although algorithms can be plugged in to the model).

It doesn't do automated Rule Induction - it's all human-steered. However, it can simplify rules for input to rule induction software and it's useful for pre and post-massaging of the inputs to and outputs from other systems.

Erudine Process

From a developer's point-of-view, Erudine claims to be particularly useful for legacy replacement; even if the legacy application is undocumented and its programmers are no longer around. This is because it models the behaviour of the legacy application as a "black box" and completely reproduces this behaviour, as validated by current domain experts, on a new platform. Legacy replacement is a known "pain point" (where traditional approaches often don't work effectively) and is therefore a good place to get new technology deployment accepted. However, the Erudine approach should work on new developments too.

Erudine development follows a reasonably straightforward process:

Stage 1: This is a basic RUP (Rational Unified Process) inception process with domain experts supplying the input – even outside Erudine, this can be quite "agile", see here. Access to real business experts at this stage is important.

Stage 2: At this stage, the developers decide on the partitioning - morphology - of the system. An architectural framework is being built.

Stage 3: A significant piece of the system is chosen - a particular case (not "use case" exactly, it's all data driven) or set of dataflows. The scope of the Erudine model is defined in terms of physical input/output docs; reference data; or (at last resort) by hooking into the system and identifying the outputs from key dataflows. This stage delivers the "mental model" of the problem domain inside developer's heads together with a semantic glossary (usually, just a simple document) for use with the model.

This is where the basic computer model of the system dataflows is built; the developers pull out meanings and put placeholders in the model for scenario-based tests. Conceptual graphs are used to represent real system or domain knowledge – Erudine does this better than most other approaches can.

Stage 4: Now the developers add "behaviour" to the system, module by module – attacking the "low hanging fruit" first. They start with the bits that are easy to replace - or those that the client desperately wants to replace. They need to manage the delivery gap – the period when they're asking questions and nothing is being delivered. However, once delivery starts it is rapid because the most likely cases are being handled first. The end users of the system should also buy into the process early on, because of the focus on business behaviours and the involvement of domain experts from inception.

As each piece of behaviour is added, inconsistencies with early behaviours are highlighted and addressed – which is a form of continuous and automated unit testing.

Stage 4A: The complete model can be executed – the integration process – there is no need for a translation into code or switch over to conventional coding.

Reducing security risks from open source software

Next page: Issues

More from The Register

next story
HIDDEN packet sniffer spy tech in MILLIONS of iPhones, iPads – expert
Don't panic though – Apple's backdoor is not wide open to all, guru tells us
Do YOU work at Microsoft? Um. Are you SURE about that?
Nokia and marketing types first to get the bullet, says report
Microsoft takes on Chromebook with low-cost Windows laptops
Redmond's chief salesman: We're taking 'hard' decisions
Cheer up, Nokia fans. It can start making mobes again in 18 months
The real winner of the Nokia sale is *drumroll* ... Nokia
EU dons gloves, pokes Google's deals with Android mobe makers
El Reg cops a squint at investigatory letters
Chrome browser has been DRAINING PC batteries for YEARS
Google is only now fixing ancient, energy-sapping bug
prev story

Whitepapers

Seven Steps to Software Security
Seven practical steps you can begin to take today to secure your applications and prevent the damages a successful cyber-attack can cause.
Consolidation: The Foundation for IT Business Transformation
In this whitepaper learn how effective consolidation of IT and business resources can enable multiple, meaningful business benefits.
Designing a Defense for Mobile Applications
Learn about the various considerations for defending mobile applications - from the application architecture itself to the myriad testing technologies.
Build a business case: developing custom apps
Learn how to maximize the value of custom applications by accelerating and simplifying their development.
Consolidation: the foundation for IT and business transformation
In this whitepaper learn how effective consolidation of IT and business resources can enable multiple, meaningful business benefits.