SOFA 2.0: Balancing Advanced Features in a Hierarchical Component Model

Bureš, Tomáš; Hnětynka, Petr; Plášil, František

doi:10.1109/sera.2006.62

Cited by 139 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

117

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Listing 1 depicts the descriptor corresponding to the assembly of Figure 1. The composite MyApp (lines 1-20) encloses two components: View (lines [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] and Model (lines [13][14][15][16][17][18]. In addition, MyApp exposes the service interface run (line 2), which is promoted from View.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A component‐based middleware platform for reconfigurable service‐oriented architectures

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY ThetextitService Component Architecture (SCA) is a technology‐independent standard for developing distributed Service‐oriented Architectures (SOA). The SCA standard promotes the use of components and architecture descriptors, and mostly covers the lifecycle steps of implementation and deployment. Unfortunately, SCA does not address the governance of SCA applications and provides no support for the maintenance of deployed components. This article covers this issue and introduces the FRASCATI platform, a run‐time support for SCA with dynamic reconfiguration capabilities and run‐time management features. This article presents the internal component‐based architecture of the FRASCATI platform, and highlights its key features. The component‐based design of the FRASCATI platform introduces many degrees of flexibility and configurability in the platform itself and it can host the SOA applications. This article reports on micro‐benchmarks highlighting that run‐time manageability in the FRASCATI platform does not decrease its performance when compared with the de facto reference SCA implementation: Apache TUSCANY. Finally, a smart home scenario illustrates the extension capabilities and the various reconfigurations of the FRASCATI platform. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A component‐based middleware platform for reconfigurable service‐oriented architectures

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, enforcing properties that do not require additional state information can be achieved in both BIP and JavaBIP without introducing additional behavior, thereby providing a stronger separation of the coordination and functional concerns. Composite bindings in Fractal bear similarity to the connector architectures in SOFA 2 [27,28], with the same remarks about separation of concerns being applicable.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Otherwise, the internal transition is disabled. Instead, to move to state done, the route has to wait for the processing termination event, associated with the spontaneous transition end ( @Transition(name = "end", source = "wait", target = "done", guard = "!g") 30 public void spontaneousEnd() {} // "!g" in the guard above means "not g" 31 32 @Transition(name = "", source = "wait", target = "done", guard = "g") 33 public void internalEnd() {} 34 35 @Transition(name = "finished", source = "done", target = "off") 36 public void finishedTransition() {} 37 38 @Guard(name = "g") 39 public lines [27][28][29][30] that checks whether the available memory limit of the system, defined through the constructor of the MemoryMonitor class ( Figure 4: lines [12][13][14], is sufficient for adding more running routes.…”

Section: Camel Routesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exogenous coordination of concurrent software components with JavaBIP

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYA strong separation of concerns is necessary in order to make the design of domain-specific functional components independent from cross-cutting concerns, such as concurrent access to the shared resources of the execution platform. Native coordination mechanisms, such as locks and monitors, allow developers to address these issues. However, such solutions are not modular, they are complex to design, debug and maintain. We present the JavaBIP framework that allows developers to think on a higher level of abstraction and clearly separate the functional and coordination aspects of the system behavior. It implements the principles of the BIP component framework rooted in rigorous operational semantics. It allows the coordination of existing concurrent software components in an exogenous manner, relying exclusively on annotations, component APIs and external specification files. We introduce the annotation and specification syntax of JavaBIP and illustrate its use on realistic examples; present the architecture of our implementation, which is modular and easily extensible; provide and discuss performance evaluation results.

show abstract

“…We have investigated several component models [7,9,11] to identify features suitable for our framework. Based on this we extract a fundamental characteristic of a state-of-the-art component model: A lightweight hierarchical component model that stresses on modularity and extensibility.…”

Section: Component Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Component Framework for Java-Based Real-Time Embedded Systems

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The Real-Time Specification for Java (RTSJ) [13] is becoming a popular choice in the world of real-time and embedded programming. However, RTSJ introduces many non-intuitive rules and restrictions which prevent its wide adoption. Moreover, current state-of-the-art frameworks usually fail to alleviate the development process into higher layers of the software development life-cycle. In this paper we extend our philosophy that RTSJ concepts need to be considered at early stages of software development, postulated in our prior work [2], in a framework that provides continuum between the design and implementation process. A component model designed specially for RTSJ serves here as a cornerstone. As the first contribution of this work, we propose a development process where RTSJ concepts are manipulated independently of functional aspects. Second, we mitigate complexities of RTSJ-development by automatically generating execution infrastructure where real-time concerns are transparently managed. We thus allow developers to create systems for variously constrained real-time and embedded environments. Performed benchmarks show that the overhead of the framework is minimal in comparison to manually written object-oriented applications, while providing more extensive functionality. Finally, the framework is designed with the stress on dynamic adaptability of target systems, a property we envisage as a fundamental in an upcoming era of massively developed real-time systems.

show abstract

SOFA 2.0: Balancing Advanced Features in a Hierarchical Component Model

Cited by 139 publications

References 7 publications

A component‐based middleware platform for reconfigurable service‐oriented architectures

A component‐based middleware platform for reconfigurable service‐oriented architectures

Exogenous coordination of concurrent software components with JavaBIP

A Component Framework for Java-Based Real-Time Embedded Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About