Using AADL to Model a Protocol Stack

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Abstract. Despite being a widely-used language for specifying software systems, UML remains less than ideal for software architectures. Architecture description languages (ADLs) were developed to provide more comprehensive support. However, so far the application of ADLs in practice has been impeded by at least one of the following problems: (i) advanced formal notations requiring a steep learning curve, (ii) lack of support for user-defined, complex connectors, and (iii) potentially unrealizable architectural designs. This paper proposes XCD, a new ADL that aims at supporting user-defined, complex connectors to help increase architectural modularity. It also aims to help increase the degree of reusability, as now components need not specify interaction protocols, as these can be specified independently by connectors (which increases protocol reusability too). Connector support requires to ensure that architectural designs are always realizable, as it is currently extremely easy to obtain unrealizable ones. XCD eliminates potentially unrealizable constructs in connector specifications. Finally, XCD employs a notation and notions from Design-by-Contract (DbC) for specifying software architecture behaviour. While DbC promotes a formal and precise way of specifying system behaviours, it is not as challenging for practising developers as process algebras that are usually employed by ADLs. Permanent repository link

show abstract

Section: Support For Complex Connectorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Realizable, Connector-Driven Software Architectures for Practising Engineers

Özkaya

Kloukinas

2014

Communications in Computer and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the use of basic interaction mechanisms as connectors in an architectural specification makes it difficult to understand what the real protocols in the system are and leads to system specifications that are at a very low level of abstraction, as is the case with AADL [11]. Indeed, designers are forced to incorporate the behaviour of the more complex connectors they wish to use into their components, decreasing their re-use potential and increasing the chance of architectural mismatch [14].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These rely mostly on simple interconnection mechanisms like procedure-calls and provide no support for specifying complex connectors, focusing their attention mostly upon components. The end result is that architectures end up more like low-level designs [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Xcd – Modular, Realizable Software Architectures

Kloukinas

Özkaya

2013

Formal Aspects of Component Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Connector-Centric Design (XCD) is centred around a new formal architectural description language, focusing mainly on complex connectors. Inspired by Wright and BIP, XCD aims to cleanly separate in a modular manner the high-level functional, interaction, and control system behaviours. This can aid in both increasing the understandability of architectural specifications and the reusability of components and connectors themselves. Through the independent specification of control behaviours, XCD allows designers to experiment more easily with different design decisions early on, without having to modify the functional behaviour specifications (components) or the interaction ones (connectors).At the same time XCD attempts to ease the architectural specification by following (and extending) a Design-by-Contract approach, which is more familiar to software developers than process algebras like CSP or languages like BIP that are closer to synchronous/hardware specification languages. XCD extends Designby-Contract (i) by separating component contracts into functional and interaction sub-contracts, and (ii) by allowing service consumers to specify their own contractual clauses. XCD connector specifications are completely decentralized, foregoing Wright's connector glue, to ensure their realizability by construction.

show abstract

“…By simply enumerating the wires/connections between resistors/components, we miss the forest for the trees. This leads to architectural designs at a very low level that is not easy to communicate and develop -as [Delanote et al, 2008] found the case to be with AADL. Figure 4 shows the number of simple connectors (identified with red ellipses) that are needed in our system.…”

Section: So the Interaction Protocol (Connector) Used Is The One Thatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Design-by-contract based Approach for Realizable Connector-centric Software Architectures

Ozkaya¹,

Kloukinas

2013

Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Software Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Despite being a widely-used language for specifying software systems, UML remains less than ideal for software architectures. Architecture description languages (ADLs) were developed to provide more comprehensive support. However, so far the application of ADLs in practice has been impeded by at least one of the following problems: (i) advanced formal notations, (ii) lack of support for complex connectors, and (iii) potentially unrealizable designs. In this paper we propose a new ADL that is based on Design-by-Contract (DbC) for specifying software architectures. While DbC promotes a formal and precise way of specifying system behaviours, it is more familiar to practising developers, thus allowing for a more comfortable way of specifying architectures than using process algebras. Furthermore, by granting connectors a first-class status, our ADL allows designers to specify not only simple interaction mechanisms as connectors but also complex interaction protocols. Finally, in order to ensure that architectural designs are always realizable we eliminate potentially unrealizable constructs in connector specifications (the connector "glue").

show abstract

Using AADL to Model a Protocol Stack

Cited by 10 publications

References 6 publications

Realizable, Connector-Driven Software Architectures for Practising Engineers

Realizable, Connector-Driven Software Architectures for Practising Engineers

Xcd – Modular, Realizable Software Architectures

Towards a Design-by-contract based Approach for Realizable Connector-centric Software Architectures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About