COMPARISON OF SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE EVALUATION METHODS APPLICABILITY IN THE CONTEXT OF CQRS WITH EVENT SOURCING ARCHITECTURAL VARIATIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15588/1607-3274-2026-1-10Keywords:
Software Architecture, Comparison of evaluation methods, CQRS with Event Sourcing, architectural variationsAbstract
Context. This study is conducted in the context of developing and justifying a methodology for software architecture (SA) evaluation in relation to the Command Query Responsibility Segregation (CQRS) with Event Sourcing (ES) architectural variations.
Objective. This work aims to evaluate and compare the applicability of SA evaluation methods to support the selection of an optimal CQRS with ES architectural variation for real-world projects.
Method. Various SA evaluation methods are applied to enhance objectivity in architectural decisions. However, these methods
are not universal; they vary in depth, focus, and required effort. The task considered in this work is the selection among CQRS with ES architectural variations, often structurally similar and thus difficult to distinguish using general-purpose evaluation methods. Comparing architectural variations requires in-depth analysis; however, for most methods, practical implementation is limited by time and resource constraints. The proposed approach identifies the most appropriate SA evaluation method for selecting between CQRS with ES architectural variations. It is based on a validated framework for classifying and comparing SA evaluation methods. In addition to qualitative analysis, the approach introduces a quantitative assessment of applicability to a specific case, allowing for supporting more informed decision-making.
Results. The approach was applied to compare several SA evaluation methods, including Information Technology for Decisionmaking Support regarding CQRS with ES Architectural Variations (DSAV-CQRSES), a method specifically designed for evaluating variations of the CQRS with ES architecture.
Conclusions. The existing framework of comparing Software Architectures cannot be directly applied to architectural variations
(the deviations of the architecture significant for customer). The proposed modifications of the framework are primarily focused on CQRS with ES variations assessment
References
Chrissis M. B., Konrad M., Shrum S. CMMI for Development: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement (SEI Series in Software Engineering) 3rd Edition. Boston, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley Professional, 2011, 688 p.
Lytvynov O. A., Hruzin D. L.Critical causal events in systems based on CQRS with Event Sourcing architecture, Radio Electronics Computer Science Control, 2024, Issue 3, pp. 119–143. DOI: 10.15588/1607-3274-2024-3-11.
Sobhy D., Bahsoon R., Minku L. et al. Evaluation of Software Architectures under Uncertainty: A Systematic Literature Review, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 2021, Vol. 30, Issue 4, pp. 1– 50. DOI: 10.1145/3464305.
Lytvynov O. A., Hruzin D. L. Decision-making on Command Query Responsibility Segregation with Event Sourcing architectural variations, Technology audit and production reserves, 2025, Vol. 4, Issue 2(84), pp. 37–59. DOI: 10.15587/2706-5448.2025.337168.
Babar M. A., Zhu L., Jeffery R. A framework for classifying and comparing software architecture evaluation methods, Software Engineering, Australian Conference, Melbourne, Victoria, 13–16 April 2004, proceedings. Melbourne, Victoria, 2004, P. 309. DOI: 10.1109/ASWEC.2004.1290484.
Babar M. A., Gorton I. Comparison of Scenario-Based Software Architecture Evaluation Methods, Software Engineering, 11th Asia-Pacific Conference, Busan, 30 November – 3 December 2004, proceedings. Busan, 2004, pp. 600–607. DOI: 10.1109/APSEC.2004.38.
Abrahão S., Insfran E. Evaluating Software Architecture Evaluation Methods: An Internal Replication, Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2017) : 21th International Conference, Karlskrona, 15–16 June 2017 : proceedings. Karlskrona, 2017, pp. 144–153. DOI: 10.1145/3084226.3084253.
González H. J., Pelozo I., Gonzales A. et al. Validating a model-driven software architecture evaluation and improvement method: A family of experiments, Information and Software Technology, 2015, Issue 57, pp. 405–429. DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2014.05.018.
DBB Software’s official company site [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://dbbsoftware.com/.
Fatima I., Lago P. A Review of Software Architecture Evaluation Methods for Sustainability Assessment, Software Architecture Companion: 20th International Conference (ICSA-C), L’Aquila, 13–17 March 2023 : proceedings. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 2006, pp. 191–194 DOI: 10.1109/ICSA-C57050.2023.00050.
Sahlabadi M., Muniyandi R. C., Shukur Z. et al. Lightweight Software Architecture Evaluation for Industry: A Comprehensive Review, Sensors, 2022, Vol. 22, Issue 3. DOI: 10.3390/s22031252.
Kazman R., Klein M., Clements P. ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation : technical report : CMU/SEI-2000- TR-004, ESC-TR-2000-004, Product Line Systems. Pittsburgh, 2000, 71 p.
Kazman R., Bass L., Abowd G. et al. SAAM: a method for analyzing the properties of software architectures, Software Engineering : 16th international conference, Sorrento, 16–21 May 1994 : proceedings. Washington, DC, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1994, pp. 81–90. DOI: 10.1109/ICSE.1994.296768.
Babar M. A., Kitchenham B. Assessment of a Framework for Comparing Software Architecture Analysis Methods, Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE): 11th International Conference, UK, 2–3 April 2007 : proceedings. Swindon, BCS Learning & Development Ltd., 2007, pp. 12–20. DOI: 10.14236/ewic/EASE2007.2.
Jayaratna N. Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies: NIMSAD, a Systematic Framewor. New York, McGrawHill, Inc., 1994, 259 p.
Gonzalez-Huerta J., Insfran E., Abrahão S. Models in Software Architecture Derivation and Evaluation: Challenges and Opportunities, Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development : the 2nd International Conference, Lisbon, 7–9 January 2014 : proceedings. Setubal, SCITEPRESS, 2014. – P. 12–31. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-25156-1_2.
Lloyd P. T. L., Galambos G. M. Technical reference architectures, IBM Systems Journal, 1999, Vol. 38, Issue 1, pp. 51–75. DOI: 10.1147/sj.381.005.
Bass L., Clements P., Kazman R. Software Architecture in Practice, Second Edition. United States, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 2003, 528 p.
Lakhdissi M., Bounabat B. A New Content Framework and Metamodel for Enterprise Architecture and is Strategic Planning, International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 2014, Vol. 9, Issue 2. DOI: 10.1201/b16417-9.
Clements P., Bachmann F., Bass L. Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond, Second Edition. Boston, Addison-Wesley, 2010, 592 p. ISBN: 978-0-321-55268-6.
Solms F. What is Software Architecture, South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Conference (SAICSIT '12), Pretoria, 1–3 October 2012 : proceedings. New York, Association for Computing Machinery, 2012, pp. 363–373. DOI:
1145/2389836.2389879.
Franchitti J. C. Enterprise Architecture Frameworks (EAFs) & Pattern Driven EAFs [Electronic resource]. Access mode:
https://cs.nyu.edu/~jcf/classes/g22.3033-007/slides/session2/g22_3033_011_c23.pdf.
Galster M., Avgeriou P., Weyns D. et al.Variability in software architecture: Current practice and challenges, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 2011, Vol. 36, Issue 5, pp. 30–32. DOI: 10.1145/2020976.2020978.
Ford N., Parsons R., Sadalage P. et al. Building Evolutionary Architectures: Automated Software Governance 2nd Edition. US, O’Reilly Media, 2022, 262 p. ISBN : 978-1492097549.
Dakhli S.B.D. Architectural Deviations and Inconsistencies Management: A Framework Based on Information Systems Urbanization, Procedia Computer Science, 2021, Vol. 181, pp. 1122–1130. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.309.
Systems and software engineering – Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE). Quality model overview and usage : ISO/IEC 25002:2024. [Effective from 2024-03]. – ISO, 2024, 17 p.
Rumpe B. Modeling with UML: Language, Concepts, Methods. Switzerland, Springer Cham, 2016, 281 p. ISBN: 978-3-319-33933-7.
Chattopadhyay A., Wang Z., Martin G. E. Architecture Description Languages, Handbook of Computer Architecture. New York, Springer, 2024, Processor Design and Programming Flows, pp. 807–839. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-97-9314-3_18.
Lung C. H., Bot S., Kalaichelvan K. et al. An approach to software architecture analysis for evolution and reusability, 1997 conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research, Toronto, 10–13 November 1997 : proceedings. US, IBM Press, 1997, P. 15. DOI:
1145/782010.782025.
Lassing N., Rijsenbrij D., Vliet H. On Software Architecture Analysis of Flexibility, Complexity of Changes: Size isn’t Everything, 2nd Nordic Software Architecture Workshop, Ronneby, 12–13 August 1999, proceedings. Ronneby, 1999, pp. 1103–1581.
Kazman R., Asundi J., Klein M.Quantifying the costs and benefits of architectural decisions, Software Engineering : the 23rd International Conference, Toronto Ontario, 12–19 May 2001, proceedings. NW Washington, IEEE Computer Society, 2001, pp. 297–306. DOI: 10.1109/ICSE.2001.919103.
Moore M., Kaman R., Klein M. Quantifying the value of architecture design decisions: Lessons from the field, Software Engineering : 25th International Conference (ICSE03), Portland, 3–10 May 2003 : proceedings. NW Washington, IEEE Computer Society, 2003, pp. 557–562. DOI: 10.1109/ICSE.2003.1201237.
Bergtsson P.O., Lassing N., Bosch J. Architecture-Level Modifiability Analysis (ALMA), Journal of Systems and Software, 2004, Vol. 69, pp. 129–147. DOI: 10.1016/S0164-1212(03)00080-3.
Ionita M. T., America P., Hammer D. K. et al. A ScenarioDriven Approach for Value, Risk, and Cost Analysis in System Architecting for Innovation, Software Architecture : 4th Working IEEE / IFIP Conference (WICSA 2004), Oslo, 12–15 June 2004, proceedings, P. 277. DOI:
1109/WICSA.2004.1310709.
Williams L. G., Smith C. U. PASASM: An Architectural Approach to Fixing Software Performance Problems, 28th International Computer Measurement Group Conference, Reno, 8–13 December 2002 : proceedings, pp. 307–320.
Smith C. U., Williams L. G. Software performance antipatterns, Software and performance : the 2nd international workshop (WOSP00), Ottawa, 1 September 2000 : proceedings. New York, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 127–136. DOI: 10.1145/350391.350420
Smith C. U., Williams L. G. Performance solutions: a practical guide to creating responsive, scalable software, Redwood City, CA, Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 2002, 544 p. ISBN: 978-0-201-72229-1
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 D. L. Hruzin, O. A. Lytvynov
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons Licensing Notifications in the Copyright Notices
The journal allows the authors to hold the copyright without restrictions and to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
The journal allows readers to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles.
The journal allows to reuse and remixing of its content, in accordance with a Creative Commons license СС BY -SA.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
-
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY-SA that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
-
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
-
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
