Online approach to feature interaction problems in middleware based system



As a popular infrastructure for distributed systems running on the Internet, middle-ware has to support much more diverse and complex interactions for coping with the drastically increasing demand on information technology and the extremely open and dynamic nature of the Internet. These supporting mechanisms facilitate the development, deployment, and integration of distributed systems, as well as increase the occasions for distributed systems to interact in an undesired way. The undesired interactions may cause serious problems, such as quality violation, function loss, and even system crash. In this paper, the problem is studied from the perspective of the feature interaction problem (FIP) in telecom, and an online approach to the detection and solution on runtime systems is proposed. Based on a classification of middleware enabled interactions, the existence of FIP in middleware based systems is illustrated by four real cases and a conceptual comparison between middleware based systems and telecom systems. After that, runtime software architecture is employed to facilitate the online detection and solution of FIP. The approach is demonstrated on J2EE (Java 2 Platform Enterprise Edition) and applied to detect and resolve all of the four real cases.


feature interaction middleware reflective software architecture 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kech D, Kuehn P J. The feature and service interaction problems in telecommunications systems: A survey. IEEE Trans Software Eng, 1998, 24(10): 779–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chi C X, Hao R B, Huang G, et al. Feature interaction: a survey. Bell Labs Technical Report, 2003Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mei H. End-to-end integration testing in CBSD. In: 25th COMPSAC’2001, Chicago, 2001. 284–285Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang D, Hao R, Lee D. Fault detection in rule-based software systems. Elsevier Info Software Tech, 2003, 45(12): 865–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pulvermüller E, Speck A, et al. Feature interaction in composed systems. In: Proc of Feature Interaction in Composed Systems at ECOOP, Budapest, Hungary, 2001Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calder M, Magill E, Kolberg M, Reiff Marganiec S. Feature interaction: a critical review and considered forecast. Comput Networks, 2003, 41(1): 115–141MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reiff Marganiec S, Ryan M D, et al. eds. Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2005Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhu Y, Huang G, Mei H. Modeling diverse and complex interactions enabled by middleware as connectors in software architectures. In: 10th IEEE International Conference on the Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, China, Shanghai, 2005. 37–46Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mei H, Huang G. PKUAS: an architecture-based reflective component operating platform. In: 10th IEEE International Workshop on Future Trends of Distributed Computing Systems, 2004. 163–169Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Agha G. Adaptive middleware: introduction. Commu ACM, 2002, 45(6): 30–32Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jackson M, Zave P. Distributed feature composition: a virtual architecture for telecommunication services. IEEE Trans Software Eng, 1998, 24(10): 831–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Teng T, Huang G, Li R Ch, et al. Feature interactions induced by data dependencies among entity components. In: the 8th International Conference on Feature Interactions in Telecommu and Software Sys, UK, 2005. 252–269Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang G, Liu T Ch, Mei H, et al. Towards autonomic computing middleware via reflection. In: Proc of 28th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), Hong Kong, 2004. 122–127Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shen J, Sun X, Huang G, et al. Towards a unified formal model for supporting mechanisms of dynamic component update. In: The fifth joint meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, Lisbon, 2005. 80–89Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shaw M, Garlan D. Software architecture: perspectives on an emerging discipline. Prentice Hall, 1996Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhu Y, Huang G, Mei H. Quality attribute scenario based architectural modeling for self-adaptation supported by architecture-based reflective middleware. In: Proc of Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC 2004), Korea, 2004. 2–9Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huang G, Mei H, Wang QX. Towards software architecture at runtime. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 2003, 28(2)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huang G, Mei H, Yang F Q. Runtime recovery and manipulation of software architecture of component-based systems. Int J Automat Software Eng, 2006, 13(2): 251–278Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu X, Huang G, Zhang W, et al. Feature interaction problems in middleware services. In: the 8th International Conference on Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems (ICFI05), Leicester, 2005. 313–319Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blair L, Blair G, Pang J. Feature interaction outside a telecom domain. In: Workshop of Feature Interaction in Composed Systems at ECOOP, Budapest, 2001Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weiss M. Feature interactions in web services. In: Proc Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems VII, Ottawa: IOS Press, 2003. 57–68Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huang G, Liu X Z, Mei H. SOAR: Towards dependable service-oriented architecture via reflective middleware. Inter J Simu Proc Model, 2007, 112: 55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science in China press 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of High Confidence Software Technologies, Ministry of EducationPeking UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of Electronics Engineering and Computer SciencePeking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations