Modeling Software Architectures and Styles with Graph Grammars and Constraint Solving

Hirsch, Dan; Inverardi, Paola; Montanari, Ugo

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35563-4_8

Cited by 38 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second conjunct (17) requires that the output of each filter be connected to the input of a single pipe. The third conjunct (18) requires that the output of a pipe be connected to at most one filter. Finally, the fourth and fifth conjuncts (19) and (20) require that pipes only be connected to filters and vice-versa.…”

Section: P)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Configuration Logics: Modelling Architecture Styles

Mavridou

Baranov

Bliudze

et al. 2016

Formal Aspects of Component Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: P)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A large body of literature, originating in [18,27], studies the use of graph grammars and transformations [30] to define software architectures. Although this work focuses mainly on dynamic reconfiguration of architectures, eg.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Configuration Logics: Modelling Architecture Styles

Mavridou

Baranov

Bliudze

et al. 2016

Formal Aspects of Component Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the dynamic evolution of an architecture has to be defined independently by a so-called coordinator. A uniform description language based on graph rewriting covering both aspects is presented by Hirsch et al [HIM99]. But in contrast to PROGRES this approach is limited to the use of context-free rules for specifying dynamic aspects.…”

Section: Architecture Modeling and Refinementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model-based a-posteriori integration of engineering tools for incremental development processes

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A-posteriori integration of heterogeneous engineering tools supplied by different vendors constitutes a challenging task. In particular, this statement applies to incremental development processes where small changes have to be propagated -potentially bidirectionally -through a set of inter-dependent design documents which have to be kept consistent with each other. Responding to these challenges, we have developed an approach to tool integration which puts strong emphasis on software architecture and model-driven development. Starting from an abstract description of a software architecture, the architecture is gradually refined down to an implementation level. To integrate heterogeneous engineering tools, wrappers are constructed for abstracting from technical details and for providing homogenized data access. On top of these wrappers, incremental integration tools provide for inter-document consistency. These tools are based on graph models of the respective document classes and graph transformation rules for maintaining inter-document consistency. Altogether, the collection of support tools and the respective infrastructure considerably leverage the problem of composing a tightly integrated development environment from a set of heterogeneous engineering tools.

show abstract

“…By interleaving computation and reconfiguration (as also done in [13]) one can be assured that changes to the configuration will be triggered by changes to the state as soon as needed. Furthermore, the changes performed in step 2 and 3 are committed to the architecture only if, after execution of the called script, the constraints on the architecture are still valid.…”

Section: Scriptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a growing body of work on architectural reconfiguration, some of it related to specific Architecture Description Languages (ADL) [4,18,25,1], and some of a formal, ADL-independent nature [13,19,22,28]. As we argued in [29], most of the proposals exhibit one of the following drawbacks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A graph based architectural (Re)configuration language

Wermelinger

Lopes

Fiadeiro

2001

Proceedings of the 8th European Software Engineering Conference Held Jointly With 9th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Fo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For several different reasons, such as changes in the business or technological environment, the configuration of a system may need to evolve during execution. Support for such evolution can be conceived in terms of a language for specifying the dynamic reconfiguration of systems. In this paper, continuing our work on the development of a formal platform for architectural design, we present a high-level language to describe architectures and for operating changes over a configuration (i.e., an architecture instance), such as adding, removing or substituting components or interconnections. The language follows an imperative style and builds on a semantic domain established in previous work. Therein, we model architectures through categorical diagrams and dynamic reconfiguration through algebraic graph rewriting.

show abstract

Modeling Software Architectures and Styles with Graph Grammars and Constraint Solving

Cited by 38 publications

References 8 publications

Configuration Logics: Modelling Architecture Styles

Configuration Logics: Modelling Architecture Styles

Model-based a-posteriori integration of engineering tools for incremental development processes

A graph based architectural (Re)configuration language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About