Components for embedded software

Genssler, Thomas; Christoph, Alexander; Winter, Michael; Nierstrasz, Oscar; Ducasse, Sté́phane; Wuyts, Roel; Arévalo, Gabriela; Schönhage, Bastiaan; Müller, Péter; Stich, Chris M.

doi:10.1145/581630.581634

Cited by 52 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many component models are currently available [15]. They can be either generic, such as CCM [16], SOFA [17] or domain specific such as PECOS [18]. They range from simple models relying on basic notion of component as UML2.0 [19] to very complex models atop of sophisticated infrastructures such as Fractal [20].…”

Section: Component Architecturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safe reconfiguration of Coqcots and Pycots components

Buisson

Dagnat

Leroux

et al. 2016

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceSoftware systems have to face evolutions of their running context and users. Therefore, the so-called dynamic reconfiguration has been commonly adopted for modifying some components and/or the architecture at runtime. Traditional approaches typically stop the needed components, apply the changes, and restart the components. However, this scheme is not suitable for critical systems and degrades user experience. This paper proposes to switch from the stop/restart scheme to dynamic software updating (DSU) techniques. Instead of stopping a component, its implementation is replaced by another one specifically built to apply the modifications while maintaining the best quality of service possible. The major contributions of this work are: (i) the integration of DSU techniques in a component model; (ii) a reconfiguration development process including specification, proof of correctness using Coq, and; (iii) a systematic method to produce the executable script. In this perspective, the use of DSU techniques brings higher quality of service when reconfiguring component-based software. Moreover, the formalization allows ensuring the safety and consistency of the reconfiguration process

show abstract

Section: Component Architecturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safe reconfiguration of Coqcots and Pycots components

Buisson

Dagnat

Leroux

et al. 2016

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the Pervasive Component Systems (PECOS) [2], [10] project describes a component model for embedded systems and is specifically tailored to field devices. Field devices are reactive, embedded devices fitted with sensors and actuators, and are developed using the most inexpensive of hardware.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although CBSE has traditionally been used to develop enterprise applications, a number of prior efforts [2], [3], [4], [5] have also used CBSE for real-time and embedded applications. These component models for real-time and embedded applications focus on assuring one or more of the different domain requirements, such as meeting the different nonfunctional properties (e.g., timeliness, reliability and security), satisfying limitations on resources, and handling uncertainties in operating environments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

F6COM: A component model for resource-constrained and dynamic space-based computing environments

Otte

Dubey

Pradhan

et al. 2013

16th IEEE International Symposium on Object/Component/Service-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC 2013)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Component-based programming models are wellsuited to the design of large-scale, distributed applications because of the ease with which distributed functionality can be developed, deployed, and validated using the models' compositional properties. Existing component models supported by standardized technologies, such as the OMG's CORBA Component Model (CCM), however, incur a number of limitations in the context of cyber physical systems (CPS) that operate in highly dynamic, resource-constrained, and uncertain environments, such as space environments, yet require multiple quality of service (QoS) assurances, such as timeliness, reliability, and security. To overcome these limitations, this paper presents the design of a novel component model called F6COM that is developed for applications operating in the context of a cluster of fractionated spacecraft. Although F6COM leverages the compositional capabilities and port abstractions of existing component models, it provides several new features. Specifically, F6COM abstracts the component operations as tasks, which are scheduled sequentially based on a specified scheduling policy. The infrastructure ensures that at any time at most one task of a component can be active -eliminating race conditions and deadlocks without requiring complicated and error-prone synchronization logic to be written by the component developer. These tasks can be initiated due to (a) interactions with other components, (b) expiration of timers, both sporadic and periodic, and (c) interactions with input/output devices. Interactions with other components are facilitated by ports. To ensure secure information flows, every port of an F6COM component is associated with a security label such that all interactions are executed within a security context. Thus, all component interactions can be subjected to Mandatory Access Control checks by a Trusted Computing Base that facilitates the interactions. Finally, F6COM provides capabilities to monitor task execution deadlines and to configure component-specific fault mitigation actions.

show abstract

“…This concern is often reflected in the component systems by having a simple semantics for components, which are sometimes seen as being purely reactive (i.e. having no own thread of activity) [14,7]. The communication is also kept simple by supporting the procedure call or the asynchronous message delivery.…”

Section: Embedded Systems Domainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using a product line for creating component systems

Bureš

Hnětynka

Malohlava

2009

Proceedings of the 2009 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Component systems have become a wide-spread technology and found their place in several application domains. Each component system has its specifics and particularities that reflect its focus and the application domain it is intended for. Although important, the diversity of component systems leads to a number of problems including having different tools for each systems, unnecessary duplication of functionality and problems with integration when several domains are to be targeted. Based on categorization of component application domains, we propose a "meta-component system", which provides a software product line for creating custom component systems. We focus especially on the deployment and execution environment, which is where most diversities are found. We demonstrate the usage of the "meta-component system" and propose how it is to be realized by two core concepts of SOFA 2, namely connector generator and microcomponents.

show abstract

Components for embedded software

Cited by 52 publications

References 8 publications

Safe reconfiguration of Coqcots and Pycots components

Safe reconfiguration of Coqcots and Pycots components

F6COM: A component model for resource-constrained and dynamic space-based computing environments

Using a product line for creating component systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About