Checking assumptions in component dynamics at the architectural level

Inverardi, Paola; Wolf, Alexander L.; Yankelevich, Daniel

doi:10.1007/3-540-63383-9_72

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, some dynamic architecture description languages (DADLs) and architectural modification languages (AMLs) have emerged. For example, C2 supports the description of graphical user interface systems using the component-and message-based style [8] and introduces unplanned changes to deployed systems by runtime component addition, removal, replacement and runtime reconfiguration [13]; Darwin supports the specification and analysis of distributed message-passing systems and allows to instantiate the new components dynamically via dyn construct [10] and establishes dynamic ports and dynamic binding mechanism [14]; Rapide defines the poser execution model of systems and allows architectural designs to be simulated [ll]; Dynamic Wright provides the formal specification and the analysis of interaction behaviors between components via the first-class connectors and realizes the localization of reconfiguration behavior and the event-trigger technique of dynamic reconfiguration [15]; CHAM shows us the arbitrary reconfiguration of architectures via the term rewriting system [9] and elegantly presents the efficient method to distinguish the difference between component's actual behaviors and its context assumptions [16].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wright [7] supports both the analysis of port-role compatibility by means of the refinement relationship between processes and the check of deadlock freedom, but has the restriction of the finite state space. Further, Inverardi and et al [16] have defined an algorithm to perform "adequacy" checks of behavioral compatibility between the component context assumptions and the component interaction behaviors. On the other aspects of analysis techniques, Darwin provides the analysis of reachability and liveness property on the basis of the Labelled Transition System [35].…”

Section: What Roles Do Architectural Styles and Connectors Play In Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Architectural issues in network-centric computing

2002

SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The widespread use of the Internet has led to great changes in traditional computational models. The concept of the networkcentric computing is becoming more and more popular. Software architecture, as an emerging discipline, focuses on the high-level structures of large complex software systems. With the critical challenges from the new computational model, many open issues of software architectures emerge. In this paper, we present some requisite technologies that are still not completely settled and offer some suggestions based on a survey of relevant study experience to date.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Roles Do Architectural Styles and Connectors Play In Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

Architectural issues in network-centric computing

2002

SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Improved reuse can then be achieved because a design and its implementation are reused jointly, as opposed to the reuse of just a set of source files. As techniques to uncover architectural mismatch mature [17], the compatibility of a reusable component with a set of already selected components can be assessed at a higher level.…”

Section: Improved Reuse Of Componentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because components and connections are typed, type checking at system composition time ensures a certain level of consistency. A stronger, behavioral type of consistency is achieved by Wright [2] and CHAM [17]. Both ADLs formally define architectures.…”

Section: Software Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

Software Architecture, Configuration Management, and Configurable Distributed Systems: A Menage a Trois

Hoek

Heimbigner

Wolf

1998

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software architecture, configuration management, and configurable distributed systems are three areas of research that until now have evolved separately. Contributions in each field have focused on their respective area of concern. However, as solutions in the three fields tend to center around some notion of a system model, it is worthwhile to investigate their relationship in detail. In particular, the large amount of overlap among the system models developed in each area, combined with the complementary nature of the differences among them, suggests that an approach based on a common system model is viable. In this paper, we illustrate the benefits of using such a unified system model, identify the commonalities and differences among the existing system models, and present some of our initial experiments that we believe will lead to the development of a single system model that is usable in all three fields.This work was supported in part by the Air Force Material Command, Rome Laboratory, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency under Contract Number F30602-94-C-0253. The content of the information does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the Government and no official endorsement should be inferred. Report Documentation PageForm Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

show abstract

“…Some also capture information about the possible states of components and about the component behaviors that involve component interaction; behaviors and data manipulations internal to a component are typically not considered at this level. Techniques have been developed for architectural analysis that can reveal problems such as potential deadlock and component mismatches [2,12,14,18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%