pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.05663 · v1 · pith:HBZT2HOYnew · submitted 2019-07-12 · 💻 cs.SE

Modularization of Research Software for Collaborative Open Source Development

Christian Zirkelbach , Alexander Krause , Wilhelm Hasselbring This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 22:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE
keywords research softwaremodularizationmicroservice architectureopen source developmentcollaborative developmentsoftware extensibilitystudent contributionsmaintainability
0
0 comments X

The pith

Modularizing research software into a microservice architecture enables collaborative contributions from both researchers and students.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reports on refactoring an open source research visualization project from a monolithic structure built with outdated technologies into a set of independent microservices. This restructuring is presented as the direct solution to the barrier that prevents new developers, especially students, from joining the work. The authors walk through the concrete modularization steps, the problems that arose during the change, and the resulting architecture that supports parallel development and easy addition of features. They close with a working example that includes several new extensions built on the updated system.

Core claim

By moving to a microservice architecture the project gains an extensible structure that supports ongoing contributions from both established researchers and students who are new to the codebase, replacing the previous non-maintainable monolith and legacy technology stack that had blocked such collaboration.

What carries the argument

The microservice architecture that decomposes the original monolithic research application into independently deployable services, allowing separate teams to work on different parts without mutual interference.

If this is right

  • Different contributors can develop and maintain separate services in parallel without breaking the rest of the system.
  • New extensions can be added as independent services rather than by editing a single large codebase.
  • The development workflow becomes more suitable for mixed teams of researchers and students working on open source research code.
  • Legacy technology can be phased out service by service instead of in one risky rewrite.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same modularization steps could be applied to other long-lived research tools that currently deter outside contributors.
  • Independent services might make it easier to incorporate new visualization or analysis techniques without touching the core system.
  • Over time the architecture could support larger, more distributed academic development groups than a monolith allows.

Load-bearing premise

The non-maintainable initial structure and obsolescent technologies were the main obstacles keeping students and new developers from contributing.

What would settle it

A before-and-after count or survey of student and new-developer contributions that shows no measurable increase after the modularization is completed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.05663 by Alexander Krause, Christian Zirkelbach, Wilhelm Hasselbring.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Architectural overview and software stack of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Architectural overview and software stack of the modularized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Architectural overview and software stack of the restructured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Software systems evolve over their lifetime. Changing conditions, such as requirements or customer requests make it inevitable for developers to perform adjustments to the underlying code base. Especially in the context of open source software where everybody can contribute, requirements can change over time and new user groups may be addressed. In particular, research software is often not structured with a maintainable and extensible architecture. In combination with obsolescent technologies, this is a challenging task for new developers, especially, when students are involved. In this paper, we report on the modularization process and architecture of our open source research project ExplorViz towards a microservice architecture. The new architecture facilitates a collaborative development process for both researchers and students. We describe the modularization measures and present how we solved occurring issues and enhanced our development process. Afterwards, we illustrate our modularization approach with our modernized, extensible software system architecture and highlight the improved collaborative development process. Finally, we present a proof-of-concept implementation featuring several developed extensions in terms of architecture and extensibility.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reports on the modularization of the ExplorViz open-source research software from a monolithic structure using obsolescent technologies to a microservice architecture. It describes the process and measures taken, issues solved, the resulting extensible architecture, a proof-of-concept with extensions, and claims that the new architecture facilitates collaborative development for researchers and students.

Significance. If the claimed facilitation of collaboration holds, the work offers a useful descriptive case study for modernizing research software to improve maintainability and open-source participation. However, the lack of quantitative evaluation or before/after metrics means the significance is limited to anecdotal experience rather than providing generalizable or falsifiable insights.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and conclusion sections: The central claim that 'the new architecture facilitates a collaborative development process for both researchers and students' is presented without any supporting quantitative evidence, such as contribution volume, student involvement rates, or pull-request metrics before versus after the changes. This leaves the causal link between modularization and improved collaboration as an untested assumption.
  2. [Process description] Process description and architecture sections: The paper identifies the initial non-maintainable structure and obsolescent technologies as primary barriers but provides no data or comparison to isolate these factors from concurrent changes in documentation, tooling, or team composition, undermining the attribution of benefits solely to the microservice architecture.
minor comments (1)
  1. The distinction between modularization measures and the microservice architecture could be clarified with a dedicated subsection or table listing specific changes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript describing the modularization of ExplorViz. The paper is a descriptive case study of the process and resulting architecture rather than a quantitative empirical study. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and conclusion sections: The central claim that 'the new architecture facilitates a collaborative development process for both researchers and students' is presented without any supporting quantitative evidence, such as contribution volume, student involvement rates, or pull-request metrics before versus after the changes. This leaves the causal link between modularization and improved collaboration as an untested assumption.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript presents the facilitation of collaboration as an outcome without quantitative before/after metrics, as no such data were collected during the project. The work reports on our practical experience with the modularization. We will revise the abstract and conclusion to qualify the claim, for example by stating that the architecture 'supports' or 'is intended to facilitate' collaborative development based on our observations, rather than asserting a proven causal effect. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Process description] Process description and architecture sections: The paper identifies the initial non-maintainable structure and obsolescent technologies as primary barriers but provides no data or comparison to isolate these factors from concurrent changes in documentation, tooling, or team composition, undermining the attribution of benefits solely to the microservice architecture.

    Authors: We concur that the paper does not isolate the contribution of the microservice architecture from other concurrent changes such as improved documentation or team adjustments. The focus is on documenting the specific modularization steps and architectural outcome. We will add an explicit limitations paragraph acknowledging that multiple factors likely influenced the improved collaboration and that the benefits cannot be attributed solely to the architecture. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Descriptive experience report with no derivations or self-referential claims

full rationale

The paper is an experience report describing a modularization process for ExplorViz without equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or load-bearing derivations. Claims rest on narrative description of their architecture changes and a POC implementation. No self-citation chains reduce the central claim to prior unverified work by the same authors, and no steps match the enumerated circularity patterns. The contribution is self-contained as a process report.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that research software typically suffers from poor maintainability due to its development context and obsolescent technologies.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Research software is often not structured with a maintainable and extensible architecture, especially when combined with obsolescent technologies.
    Stated as background fact in the abstract to motivate the modularization effort.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5705 in / 1137 out tokens · 28753 ms · 2026-05-24T22:43:01.575545+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Better Software, Better Research,

    C. Goble, “Better Software, Better Research,” IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 4–8, Sep. 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Software engineer- ing for computational science: Past, present, future,

    A. Johanson and W. Hasselbring, “Software engineer- ing for computational science: Past, present, future,” Computing in Science & Engineering , vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 90–109, Mar. 2018. DOI: 10 . 1109 / MCSE . 2018 . 021651343

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Microservice Ar- chitectures for Scalability, Agility and Reliability in E- Commerce,

    W. Hasselbring and G. Steinacker, “Microservice Ar- chitectures for Scalability, Agility and Reliability in E- Commerce,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture Workshops (IC- SAW), Apr. 2017, pp. 243–246. DOI: 10.1109/ICSAW. 2017.11

    work page doi:10.1109/icsaw 2017

  4. [4]

    Migrat- ing Towards Microservice Architectures: An Industrial Survey,

    P. D. Francesco, P. Lago, and I. Malavolta, “Migrat- ing Towards Microservice Architectures: An Industrial Survey,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Con- ference on Software Architecture (ICSA) , Apr. 2018, pp. 29–2909

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Software landscape and application visualization for system com- prehension with ExplorViz,

    F. Fittkau, A. Krause, and W. Hasselbring, “Software landscape and application visualization for system com- prehension with ExplorViz,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 87, pp. 259–277, Jul. 2017. DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2016.07.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2016.07.004 2017

  6. [6]

    ExplorViz: Visual runtime behavior analysis of enterprise appli- cation landscapes,

    F. Fittkau, S. Roth, and W. Hasselbring, “ExplorViz: Visual runtime behavior analysis of enterprise appli- cation landscapes,” in 23rd European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2015 Completed Research Papers), AIS Electronic Library, May 2015, pp. 1–13. DOI: 10.18151/7217313

    work page doi:10.18151/7217313 2015

  7. [7]

    Architectural Runtime Modeling and Visualization for Quality-Aware DevOps in Cloud Applications,

    R. Heinrich, C. Zirkelbach, and R. Jung, “Architectural Runtime Modeling and Visualization for Quality-Aware DevOps in Cloud Applications,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Architec- ture Workshops (ICSAW), Apr. 2017, pp. 199–201

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    An architectural model-based ap- proach to quality-aware devops in cloud applications,

    R. Heinrich, R. Jung, C. Zirkelbach, W. Hasselbring, and R. Reussner, “An architectural model-based ap- proach to quality-aware devops in cloud applications,” in SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE FOR BIG DATA AND THE CLOUD, I. Mistrik, R. Bahsoon, N. Ali, M. Heisel, and B. Maxim, Eds., Cambridge: Elsevier, Jun. 2017, pp. 69–89

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    Hierarchical software landscape visualization for system comprehen- sion: A controlled experiment,

    F. Fittkau, A. Krause, and W. Hasselbring, “Hierarchical software landscape visualization for system comprehen- sion: A controlled experiment,” in Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualiza- tion (VISSOFT 2015), IEEE, Sep. 2015, pp. 36–45. DOI: 10.1109/VISSOFT.2015.7332413

    work page doi:10.1109/vissoft.2015.7332413 2015

  10. [10]

    Comparing Trace Visualizations for Program Com- prehension through Controlled Experiments,

    F. Fittkau, S. Finke, W. Hasselbring, and J. Waller, “Comparing Trace Visualizations for Program Com- prehension through Controlled Experiments,” in Pro- ceedings of the 23rd IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC 2015) , May 2015, pp. 266–276. DOI: 10.1109/ICPC.2015.37

    work page doi:10.1109/icpc.2015.37 2015

  11. [11]

    [Online]

    Open Source Software Community, Google Web Toolkit Project (GWT), version 2.8.2, May 19, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://www.gwtproject.org

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    [Online]

    ——, Checkstyle, version 8.10, May 19, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    [Online]

    ——, PMD, version 6.10.0, May 19, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://pmd.github.io

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Eclipse Foundation, AspectJ, version 1.8.5, May 19,

    work page

  15. [15]

    Available: https : / / www

    [Online]. Available: https : / / www. eclipse . org / aspectj

    work page

  16. [16]

    [Online]

    Open Source Software Community, H2, version 1.4.177, May 19, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://www.h2database.com

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Migration of SOAP-based services to RESTful ser- vices,

    B. Upadhyaya, Y . Zou, H. Xiao, J. Ng, and A. Lau, “Migration of SOAP-based services to RESTful ser- vices,” in Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Symposium on Web Systems Evolution (WSE) , Sep. 2011, pp. 105–114

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    RESTful Web Services Development Checklist,

    S. Vinoski, “RESTful Web Services Development Checklist,” IEEE Internet Computing , vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 96–95, Nov. 2008, ISSN : 1089-7801

    work page 2008

  19. [19]

    On the Modernization of ExplorViz towards a Microservice Ar- chitecture,

    C. Zirkelbach, A. Krause, and W. Hasselbring, “On the Modernization of ExplorViz towards a Microservice Ar- chitecture,” in Combined Proceedings of the Workshops of the German Software Engineering Conference 2018 , vol. Online Proceedings for Scientific Conferences and Workshops, Ulm, Germany: CEUR Workshop Proceed- ings, Feb. 2018

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Human Aspects in Software Architecture Decision Making: A Literature Review,

    A. Tang, M. Razavian, B. Paech, and T. Hesse, “Human Aspects in Software Architecture Decision Making: A Literature Review,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Inter- national Conference on Software Architecture (ICSA) , Apr. 2017, pp. 107–116

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    On the Modularization of ExplorViz towards Collaborative Open Source Development,

    C. Zirkelbach, A. Krause, and W. Hasselbring, “On the Modularization of ExplorViz towards Collaborative Open Source Development,” Kiel University, Technical Report TR 1902, May 2019, to appear

    work page 1902

  22. [22]

    Drivers and barriers for microservice adoption – a survey among professionals in Germany,

    H. Knoche and W. Hasselbring, “Drivers and barriers for microservice adoption – a survey among profession- als in Germany,” Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures (EMISAJ) – International Journal of Conceptual Modeling, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–35, 2019. DOI: 10.18417/emisa.14.1

    work page doi:10.18417/emisa.14.1 2019

  23. [23]

    Using Microservices for Legacy Software Modernization,

    H. Knoche and W. Hasselbring, “Using Microservices for Legacy Software Modernization,” IEEE Software , vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 44–49, May 2018, ISSN : 0740-7459

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Microser- vices: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,

    N. Dragoni, S. Giallorenzo, A. L. Lafuente, M. Maz- zara, F. Montesi, R. Mustafin, and L. Safina, “Microser- vices: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,” inPresent and Ulterior Software Engineering . Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 195–216

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    A Systematic Mapping Study in Microservice Architecture,

    N. Alshuqayran, N. Ali, and R. Evans, “A Systematic Mapping Study in Microservice Architecture,” in Pro- ceedings of the 9th International Conference on Service- Oriented Computing and Applications (SOCA) , Nov. 2016, pp. 44–51

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    Migrat- ing Towards Microservices: Migration and Architec- ture Smells,

    A. Carrasco, B. v. Bladel, and S. Demeyer, “Migrat- ing Towards Microservices: Migration and Architec- ture Smells,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Refactoring, ser. IWoR 2018, Montpellier, France: ACM, 2018, pp. 1–6

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    [Online]

    Oracle, Jersey Project , version 2.27, May 19, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://jersey.github.io

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    Kieker: A Framework for Application Performance Monitoring and Dynamic Software Analysis,

    A. van Hoorn, J. Waller, and W. Hasselbring, “Kieker: A Framework for Application Performance Monitoring and Dynamic Software Analysis,” in Proceedings of the 3rd joint ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering (ICPE 2012) , ACM, Apr. 2012, pp. 247–248

    work page 2012

  29. [29]

    Ember Core Team, Ember.js, version 3.6.0, May 19,

    work page

  30. [30]

    Available: https://www.emberjs.com

    [Online]. Available: https://www.emberjs.com

    work page

  31. [31]

    [On- line]

    Joyent, Node.js, version 10.15.0, May 19, 2019. [On- line]. Available: https://nodejs.org

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    [Online]

    Open Source Software Community, json:api, ver- sion 1.0.0, May 19, 2019. [Online]. Available: https : //jsonapi.org

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Simplifying Software System Monitoring through Application Discovery with ExplorViz,

    A. Krause, C. Zirkelbach, and W. Hasselbring, “Simplifying Software System Monitoring through Application Discovery with ExplorViz,” in PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON SOFTWARE PERFORMANCE 2018: JOINT DEVELOPER AND COMMUNITY MEETING OF DESCARTES/KIEKER/PALLADIO, Nov. 2018

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    [Online]

    Nginx, Nginx, version 1.15.8, May 19, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://nginx.org

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    Apache Software Foundation, Apache Kafka , May 19,

    work page

  36. [36]

    Available: https://kafka.apache.org

    [Online]. Available: https://kafka.apache.org

    work page

  37. [37]

    [Online]

    Open Source Software Community, Spotbugs, ver- sion 3.1.10, May 19, 2019. [Online]. Available: https: //spotbugs.github.io

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    [Online]

    ESLint Team, ESLint, version 5.12.0, May 19, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://eslint.org

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    Open Source Software Community, TravisCI, May 19,

    work page

  40. [40]

    Available: https://travis-ci.org

    [Online]. Available: https://travis-ci.org

    work page

  41. [41]

    MicroART: A Software Architecture Recovery Tool for Maintaining Microservice-Based Systems,

    G. Granchelli, M. Cardarelli, P. D. Francesco, I. Mala- volta, L. Iovino, and A. D. Salle, “MicroART: A Software Architecture Recovery Tool for Maintaining Microservice-Based Systems,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Architec- ture Workshops (ICSAW), Apr. 2017, pp. 298–302

    work page 2017