SOFA/DCUP: architecture for component trading and dynamic updating

Plášil, František; Bálek, Dušan; Janeček, Radovan

doi:10.1109/cds.1998.675757

Cited by 121 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For practical reasons, we have chosen to base our development on the Fractal component model [3] and more precisely on its reference Java implementation Julia. However, the concepts developed in this paper could easily be applied to other hierarchical component models such as Koala [4], Darwin [5] or Sofa [6].…”

Section: Hierarchical Component Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constraint-Based Deployment of Distributed Components in a Dynamic Network

Hoareau¹,

Mahéo²

2006

Architecture of Computing Systems - ARCS 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Hierarchical software components offer interesting characteristics for the development of complex applications. However, supporting the deployment of such applications is difficult, especially on challenging distributed platforms. This paper addresses the distribution and the deployment of hierarchical components on heterogeneous dynamic networks. Such networks may include fixed and mobile resource-constrained devices and are characterized by the volatility of their hosts and connections, which may lead to their fragmentation. The distribution scheme and the associated mechanisms we propose allow a component to provide its services in an ubiquitous way and to operate in a degraded mode. The deployment of hierarchical components is described: we present an ADL extension for specifying a context-aware deployment and we detail a hierarchicallycontrolled deployment designed for dynamic networks. This deployment is performed in a propagative way and is driven by constraints put on the resources of the target hosts.

show abstract

Section: Hierarchical Component Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constraint-Based Deployment of Distributed Components in a Dynamic Network

Hoareau¹,

Mahéo²

2006

Architecture of Computing Systems - ARCS 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other component models like Kola [27], [28], SOFA [29] and KorbaA [30], follow the representation and model of Kola. In Kola the component having two parts the component specification and implementation [31].…”

Section: B Various Component Model Found and Theirmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis and Evaluating Security of Component-Based Software Development: A Security Metrics Framework

Mir¹,

Quadri²

2012

IJCNIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Evaluating the security of software systems is a complex problem for the research communities due to the multifaceted and complex operational environment of the system involved. Many efforts towards the secure system development methodologies like secSDLC by Microsoft have been made but the measurement scale on which the security can be measured got least success. As with a shift in the nature of software development from standalone applications to distributed environment where there are a number of potential adversaries and threats present, security has been outlined and incorporated at the architectural level of the system and so is the need to evaluate and measure the level of security achieved . In this paper we present a framework for security evaluation at the design and architectural phase of the system development. We have outlined the security objectives based on the security requirements of the system and analyzed the behavior of various software architectures styles.As the component-based development (CBD) is an important and widely used model to develop new large scale software due to various benefits like increased reuse, reduce time to market and cost. Our emphasis is on CBD and we have proposed a framework for the security evaluation of Component based software design and derived the security metrics for the main three pillars of security, confidentiality, integrity and availability based on the component composition, dependency and inter component data/information flow.The proposed framework and derived metrics are flexible enough, in way that the system developer can modify the metrics according to the situation and are applicable both at the development phases and as well as after development.

show abstract

“…3 (b)). Besides ADLs, other software component models that adopt indirect message passing schemes are JavaBeans [27], Koala [30], SOFA [25], PECOS [22], PIN [14] and Fractal [8].…”

Section: Exogenous Connectorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Software Component Model and Its Preliminary Formalisation

Lau

Ornaghi

Wang

2006

Formal Methods for Components and Objects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. A software component model should define what components are, and how they can be composed. That is, it should define a theory of components and their composition. Current software component models tend to use objects or port-connector type architectural units as components, with method calls and port-to-port connections as composition mechanisms. However, these models do not provide a proper composition theory, in particular for key underlying concepts such as encapsulation and compositionality. In this paper, we outline our notion of these concepts, and give a preliminary formalisation of a software component model that embodies these concepts.

show abstract

SOFA/DCUP: architecture for component trading and dynamic updating

Cited by 121 publications

References 17 publications

Constraint-Based Deployment of Distributed Components in a Dynamic Network

Constraint-Based Deployment of Distributed Components in a Dynamic Network

Analysis and Evaluating Security of Component-Based Software Development: A Security Metrics Framework

A Software Component Model and Its Preliminary Formalisation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About