We study a framework for the specification of architecture styles as families of architectures involving a common set of types of components and coordination mechanisms. The framework combines two logics: 1) interaction logics for the specification of architectures as generic coordination schemes involving a configuration of interactions between typed components; and 2) configuration logics for the specification of architecture styles as sets of interaction configurations. The presented results build on previous work on architecture modelling in BIP. We show how propositional interaction logic can be extended into a corresponding configuration logic by adding new operators on sets of interaction configurations. In addition to the usual set-theoretic operators, configuration logic is equipped with a coalescing operator + to express combination of configuration sets. We provide a complete axiomatization of propositional configuration logic as well as decision procedures for checking that an architecture satisfies given logical specifications. To allow genericity of specifications, we study first-order and second-order extensions of the propositional configuration logic. First-order logic formulas involve quantification over component variables. Second-order logic formulas involve additional quantification over sets of components. We provide several examples illustrating the application of the results to the characterisation of various architecture styles. We also provide an experimental evaluation using the Maude rewriting system to implement the decision procedure for the propositional flavour of the logic.
Architectures depict design principles: paradigms that can be understood by all, allow thinking on a higher plane and avoiding low-level mistakes. They provide means for ensuring correctness by construction by enforcing global properties characterizing the coordination between components. An architecture can be considered as an operator A that, applied to a set of components B, builds a composite component A(B) meeting a characteristic property. Architecture composability is a basic and common problem faced by system designers. In this paper, we propose a formal and general framework for architecture composability based on an associative, commutative and idempotent architecture composition operator ⊕. The main result is that if two architectures A 1 and A 2 enforce respectively safety properties 1 and 2 , the architecture A 1 ⊕ A 2 enforces the property 1 ∧ 2 , that is both properties are preserved by architecture composition. We also establish preservation of liveness properties by architecture composition. The presented results are illustrated by a running example and a case study.
Architectures depict design principles: paradigms that can be understood by all, allow thinking on a higher plane and avoiding low-level mistakes. They provide means for ensuring correctness by construction by enforcing global properties characterizing the coordination between components. An architecture can be considered as an operator A that, applied to a set of components B, builds a composite component A(B) meeting a characteristic property . Architecture composability is a basic and common problem faced by system designers. In this paper, we propose a formal and general framework for architecture composability based on an associative, commutative and idempotent architecture composition operator ⊕. The main result is that if two architectures A 1 and A 2 enforce respectively safety properties 1 and 2 , the architecture A 1 ⊕ A 2 enforces the property 1 ∧ 2 , that is both properties are preserved by architecture composition. We also establish preservation of liveness properties by architecture composition. The presented results are illustrated by a running example and a case study. P. Attie et al.Informally speaking, an architecture can be considered as an operator A that, applied to a set of components B builds a composite component A(B) meeting a characteristic property . In a design process, it is often necessary to combine more than one architectural solution on a set of components to achieve a global property. System engineers use libraries of solutions to specific problems and they need methods for combining them without jeopardizing their characteristic properties. For example, a fault-tolerant architecture combines a set of features building into the environment protections against trustworthiness violations. These include (1) triple modular redundancy mechanisms ensuring continuous operation in case of single component failure; (2) hardware checks to be sure that programs use data only in their defined regions of memory, so that there is no possibility of interference; (3) default to least privilege (least sharing) to enforce file protection. Is it possible to obtain a single fault-tolerant architecture consistently combining these features? The key issue here is architecture composability in the integrated solution, which can be formulated as follows:Consider two architectures A 1 and A 2 , enforcing respectively properties 1 and 2 on a set of components B. That is, A 1 (B) and A 2 (B) satisfy respectively the properties 1 and 2 . Is it possible to find an architecture A 1 ⊕ A 2 such that the composite component (A 1 ⊕ A 2 )(B) meets 1 ∧ 2 ? For instance, if A 1 ensures mutual exclusion and A 2 enforces a scheduling policy is it possible to find an architecture on the same set of components that satisfies both properties?Architecture composability is a very basic and common problem faced by system designers. Manifestations of lack of composability are also known as feature interaction in telecommunication systems [CKMRM03].The development of a formal framework dealing with architecture composability ...
We study a framework for the specification of architecture styles as families of architectures involving a common set of types of components and coordination mechanisms. The framework combines two logics: 1) interaction logics for the specification of architectures as generic coordination schemes involving a configuration of interactions between typed components; and 2) configuration logics for the specification of architecture styles as sets of interaction configurations. Configuration logics can be considered as a power-set extension of interaction logics. The relation between the two logics is similar to the relation between programs and their specifications. As program specifications can be expressed, eg. in temporal logics, architecture styles can be specified in configuration logics.The presented results build on previous work on architecture modelling in BIP. We show how propositional interaction logic can be extended into a corresponding configuration logic by adding new operators on sets of interaction configurations. In addition to the usual set-theoretic operators, configuration logic is equipped with a coalescing operator + to express combination of configuration sets. This operator proves to be particularly useful for the specification of architecture styles including a given class of configurations. We provide a complete axiomatization of propositional configuration logic as well as decision procedures for checking that an architecture satisfies given logical specifications.To allow genericity of specifications, we study first-order and second-order extensions of the propositional configuration logic. First-order logic formulas involve quantification over component variables. Second-order logic formulas involve additional quantification over sets of components. We provide several examples illustrating the application of the results to the characterisation of various architecture styles. We also provide an experimental evaluation using the Maude rewriting system to implement the decision procedure for the propositional flavour of the logic. We conclude with a discussion of the related work and of future directions dealing with the application of the results through the development of specific methods and tools.
Based on a concise but comprehensive overview of some fundamental properties required from component-based frameworks, namely compositionality, incrementality, flattening, modularity and expressiveness, we review three modifications of the semantics of glue operators in the Behaviour-Interaction-Priority (BIP) framework. We provide theoretical results and examples illustrating the degree to which the three semantics meet these requirements. In particular, we show that the most recent semantics, based on the offer predicate is the only one that satisfies all of them. The classical and offer semantics are not comparable: there are systems that can be assembled in the classical semantics, but not in the offer one. We present a strict characterisation of the behaviour hierarchy determining the conditions, under which systems in the classical semantics can be transposed into the offer semantics: directly, with minor modifications, by introducing a new type of synchronisation or cannot be transposed at all. The offer semantics allows us to extend the algebras, which are used to model glue operators in BIP, to encompass priorities. This extension uses the Algebra of Causal Interaction Trees, T (P ), as a pivot: existing transformations automatically provide the extensions for the Algebra of Connectors. We then extend the axiomatisation of T (P ), since the equivalence induced by the new operational semantics is weaker than that induced by the interaction semantics. This extension leads to canonical normal forms for all structures and to a simplification of the algorithm for the synthesis of connectors from Boolean coordination constraints.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.