Dr. Tomas Cerny
Computer Science, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA
+1
'%3e%3cpath%20d='M22.1642%2019.0924C21.7317%2018.068%2021.1041%2017.1375%2020.3163%2016.3527C19.5309%2015.5656%2018.6006%2014.9381%2017.5766%2014.5048C17.5674%2014.5002%2017.5582%2014.4979%2017.5491%2014.4933C18.9774%2013.4616%2019.9059%2011.7811%2019.9059%209.88504C19.9059%206.74408%2017.3611%204.19922%2014.2201%204.19922C11.0792%204.19922%208.53429%206.74408%208.53429%209.88504C8.53429%2011.7811%209.46282%2013.4616%2010.8912%2014.4956C10.882%2014.5002%2010.8728%2014.5025%2010.8636%2014.5071C9.83652%2014.9404%208.91487%2015.5617%208.1239%2016.355C7.33685%2017.1404%206.70933%2018.0707%206.276%2019.0947C5.85031%2020.0972%205.62072%2021.172%205.59967%2022.2609C5.59905%2022.2853%205.60335%2022.3097%205.61229%2022.3325C5.62123%2022.3553%205.63465%2022.376%205.65174%2022.3935C5.66883%2022.4111%205.68926%2022.425%205.71182%2022.4345C5.73437%2022.444%205.7586%2022.4489%205.78308%2022.4489H7.15868C7.25956%2022.4489%207.3398%2022.3686%207.3421%2022.2701C7.38795%2020.5001%208.09868%2018.8425%209.35506%2017.5861C10.655%2016.2862%2012.3814%2015.5709%2014.2201%2015.5709C16.0588%2015.5709%2017.7852%2016.2862%2019.0852%2017.5861C20.3415%2018.8425%2021.0523%2020.5001%2021.0981%2022.2701C21.1004%2022.3709%2021.1807%2022.4489%2021.2815%2022.4489H22.6571C22.6816%2022.4489%2022.7058%2022.444%2022.7284%2022.4345C22.751%2022.425%2022.7714%2022.4111%2022.7885%2022.3935C22.8056%2022.376%2022.819%2022.3553%2022.8279%2022.3325C22.8369%2022.3097%2022.8412%2022.2853%2022.8406%2022.2609C22.8176%2021.165%2022.5907%2020.0989%2022.1642%2019.0924ZM14.2201%2013.8284C13.1678%2013.8284%2012.1773%2013.418%2011.4322%2012.6729C10.6871%2011.9278%2010.2767%2010.9374%2010.2767%209.88504C10.2767%208.83271%2010.6871%207.84227%2011.4322%207.09715C12.1773%206.35204%2013.1678%205.94165%2014.2201%205.94165C15.2724%205.94165%2016.2629%206.35204%2017.008%207.09715C17.7531%207.84227%2018.1635%208.83271%2018.1635%209.88504C18.1635%2010.9374%2017.7531%2011.9278%2017.008%2012.6729C16.2629%2013.418%2015.2724%2013.8284%2014.2201%2013.8284Z'%20fill='%238590A2'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
Co-authors
Following
Followers
Research Focus & Metrics
Explore full metrics on Scilit
Academic Career Length
17Years (2010-Present)
(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)
Representative Publications
View All Publications29 January 2018 in ACM SIGAPP Applied Computing Review
Journal Article
Current industry trends in enterprise architectures indicate movement from Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) to Microservices. By understanding the key differences between these two approaches and their features, we can design a more effective Microservice architecture by avoiding SOA pitfalls. To do this, we must know why this shift is happening and how key SOA functionality is addressed by key features of the Microservice-based system. Unfortunately, Microservices do not address all SOA shortcomings. In addition, Microservices introduce new challenges. This work provides a detailed analysis of the differences between these two architectures and their features. Next, we describe both research and industry perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of both architectural directions. Finally, we perform a systematic mapping study related to Microservice research, identifying interest and challenges in multiple categories from a range of recent research.
Journal Article
VBVincent Bushong
Vincent Bushong
Amr S. Abdelfattah
Abdullah Al Maruf
Dipta DasALAustin Lehman
Austin Lehman
Miroslav Bures +5
Microservice architecture has become the leading design for cloud-native systems. The highly decentralized approach to software development consists of relatively independent services, which provides benefits such as faster deployment cycles, better scalability, and good separation of concerns among services. With this new architecture, one can naturally expect a broad range of advancements and simplifications over legacy systems. However, microservice system design remains challenging, as it is still difficult for engineers to understand the system module boundaries. Thus, understanding and explaining the microservice systems might not be as easy as initially thought. This study aims to classify recently published approaches and techniques to analyze microservice systems. It also looks at the evolutionary perspective of such systems and their analysis. Furthermore, the identified approaches target various challenges and goals, which this study analyzed. Thus, it provides the reader with a roadmap to the discipline, tools, techniques, and open challenges for future work. It provides a guide towards choices when aiming for analyzing cloud-native systems. The results indicate five analytical approaches commonly used in the literature, possibly in combination, towards problems classified into seven categories.
18 January 2019 in IEEE Access
Journal Article
Bestoun S. AhmedMBMiroslav Bures
Miroslav Bures
KFKarel Frajtak
Karel Frajtak
Tomas CernyInternet of Things (IoT) is an emerging technology that has the promising power to change our future. Due to the market pressure, IoT systems may be released without sufficient testing. However, it is no longer acceptable to release IoT systems to the market without assuring the quality. As in the case of new technologies, the quality assurance process is a challenging task. This paper shows the results of the first comprehensive and systematic mapping study to structure and categories the research evidence in the literature starting in 2009 when the early publication of IoT papers for IoT quality assurance appeared. The conducted research is based on the most recent guidelines on how to perform systematic mapping studies. A set of research questions is defined carefully regarding the quality aspects of the IoT. Based on these questions, a large number of evidence and research papers is considered in the study (478 papers). We have extracted and analyzed different levels of information from those considered papers. Also, we have classified the topics addressed in those papers into categories based on the quality aspects. The study results carry out different areas that require more work and investigation in the context of IoT quality assurance. The results of the study can help in a further understanding of the research gaps. Moreover, the results show a roadmap for future research directions.
Journal Article
Microservice Architecture (MSA) is becoming the predominant direction of new cloud-based applications. There are many advantages to using microservices, but also downsides to using a more complex architecture than a typical monolithic enterprise application. Beyond the normal poor coding practices and code smells of a typical application, microservice-specific code smells are difficult to discover within a distributed application setup. There are many static code analysis tools for monolithic applications, but tools to offer code-smell detection for microservice-based applications are lacking. This paper proposes a new approach to detect code smells in distributed applications based on microservices. We develop an MSANose tool to detect up to eleven different microservice specific code smells and share it as open-source. We demonstrate our tool through a case study on two robust benchmark microservice applications and verify its accuracy. Our results show that it is possible to detect code smells within microservice applications using bytecode and/or source code analysis throughout the development process or even before its deployment to production.
12 June 2018 in Security and Communication Networks
Journal Article
The Internet of Things is currently getting significant interest from the scientific community. Academia and industry are both focused on moving ahead in attempts to enhance usability, maintainability, and security through standardization and development of best practices. We focus on security because of its impact as one of the most limiting factors to wider Internet of Things adoption. Numerous research areas exist in the security domain, ranging from cryptography to network security to identity management. This paper provides a survey of existing research applicable to the Internet of Things environment at the application layer in the areas of identity management, authentication, and authorization. We survey and analyze more than 200 articles, categorize them, and present current trends in the Internet of Things security domain.
15 September 2023 in Journal of Systems and Software
Journal Article
Tomas CernyAAAmr S. Abdelfattah
Amr S. Abdelfattah
AMAbdullah Al Maruf
Abdullah Al Maruf
AJAndrea Janes
Andrea JanesDTDavide Taibi
Davide TaibiAbout Me
Tomas Cerny is an Associate Professor of Systems and Industrial engineering at the University of Arizona, Tucson. He is in the Software Engineering Unit managing software engineering programs. After earning engineer and masters's degrees from the Czech Technical University, FEE, and from Baylor University, he has served as an assistant professor at the Science and Computer Department at the Czech Technical University, FEE, since 2009. Soon after earning a doctoral degree in 2016, he returned to Baylor University to join the Computer Science Department. He was tenured in 2023 at Baylor and moved to the role of Associate Professor of Systems and Industrial Engineering at the University of Arizona. His research focuses are software engineering, software architecture, technical debt, static analysis, and cloud-computing application maintenance. He has served 15+ years as the lead developer of the International Collegiate Programming Contest Management System. He has authored nearly 200 publications, mostly relating to code analysis and aspect-oriented programming. Among his awards are the eight best papers, the 2023 Baylor Scholarship Award, the Outstanding Service Award ACM SIGAPP 2018 and 2015, and the 2011 ICPC Joseph S. DeBlasi Outstanding Contribution Award. He actively serves the scientific community and was on the organizing committee for IEEE SOSE, ESOCC, SANER, ACM SAC, ACM RACS, and ICITCS.
Social Links
