Algorithms for Web service selection with static and dynamic requirements

  • Claudia CanaliEmail author
  • Michele Colajanni
  • Riccardo Lancellotti
Original Research Paper


A main feature of Service Oriented Architectures is the capability to support the development of new applications through the composition of existing Web services that are offered by different service providers. The runtime selection of which providers may better satisfy the end-user requirements in terms of quality of service remains an open issue in the context of Web services. The selection of the service providers has to satisfy requirements of different nature: requirements may refer to static qualities of the service providers, which do not change over time or change slowly compared to the service invocation time (for example related to provider reputation), and to dynamic qualities, which may change on a per-invocation basis (typically related to performance, such as the response time). The main contribution of this paper is to propose a family of novel runtime algorithms that select service providers on the basis of requirements involving both static and dynamic qualities, as in a typical Web scenario. We implement the proposed algorithms in a prototype and compare them with the solutions commonly used in service selection, which consider all the service provider qualities as static for the scope of the selection process. Our experiments show that a static management of quality requirements is viable only in the unrealistic case where workload remains stable over time, but it leads to very poor performance in variable environments. On the other hand, the combined management of static and dynamic quality requirements allows us to achieve better user-perceived performance over a wide range of scenarios, with the response time of the proposed algorithms that is reduced up to a 50 % with respect to that of static algorithms.


Web services Dynamic Web Performance evaluation 


  1. 1.
    Aggarwal R, Verma K, Miller J, Milnor W (2004) Constraint driven Web service composition in METEOR-S. In: Proceeding of IEEE international conference on services computing (SCC 2004). Shanghai, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alamri A, Eid M, Saddik AE (2006) Classification of the state of the art dynamic Web services composition techniques. Int J Web Grid Serv 2(2):148–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alrifai M, Risse T (2009) Combining global optimization with local selection for efficient QoS-aware service composition. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on World Wide Web (WWW’09). Madrid, Spain, pp 881–890Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amazon (2012) Amazon Marketplace
  5. 5.
    Anand SS, Mobasher B (2007) Introduction to intelligent techniques for Web personalization. ACM Trans Internet Technol 7(4):1–36Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ardagna D, Pernici B (2007) Adaptive service composition in flexible processes. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33(6):369–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arsanjani A, Zhang LJ, Ellis M, Allam A, Channabasavaiah K (2007) S3: a service-oriented reference architecture. IT Prof 9(3):10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aurrecoechea C, Campbell AT, Hauw L (1998) A survey of qos architectures. Multimedia Syst 6(3):138–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berbner R, Spahn M, Repp N, Heckmann O, Steinmetz R (2006) Heuristics for qos-aware web service composition. In: Proceedings of 2006 IEEE international conference on Web Services (ICWS’06). Chicago, IL, pp 72–82Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Canali C, Colajanni M, Lancellotti R (2009) Performance impact of future Mobile-Web based services on the server infrastructure. IEEE Internet Comput 13(2):60–68Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Canali C, Colajanni M, Lancellotti R, Yu PS (2007) A distributed infrastructure supporting personalized services for the mobile Web. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on wireless and mobile computing, networking and communications (WIMOB). White Plains, NYGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen Y (2008) Web services composition with incomplete QoS information. In: Computer and information technology workshops, 2008. IEEE 8th international conference on CIT workshops 2008, pp 683–687Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chou SY, Chang YH, Shen CY (2008) A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision-making for facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes. Eur J Oper Res 189(1):132–145zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Claro DB, Albers P, Hao JK (2005) Selecting Web Services for optimal composition. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on Web Services (ICWS’05). Orlando, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dmitriev PA, Eiron N, Fontoura M, Shekita E (2006) Using annotations in enterprise search. In: Proceedings of 15th World Wide Web conference. EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eid M, Alamri A, Saddik AE (2008) A reference model for dynamic Web service composition systems. J Web Grid Serv 4(2):149–168Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    El-Khatib K, Bochmann G, El-Saddik A (2007) A QoS-based service composition for content adaptation. In: Proceedings of IEEE 23rd international conference on data engineering workshop. Instambul, Turkey, pp 331–338Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gooneratne N, Tari Z (2008) Matching independent global constraints for composite Web services. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web (WWW’08). Beijing, China, pp 765–774Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang C, Abdelzaher T (2005) Bounded-latency content distribution: feasibility and evaluation. IEEE Trans Comput 54(11):1422–1437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klein A, Ishikawa F, Honiden S (2012) Towards network-aware service composition in the Cloud. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web (WWW ’12)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ko JM, Kim CO, Kwon IH (2008) Quality-of-service oriented Web service composition algorithm and planning architecture. J Syst Softw 81(11):2079–2090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martello S, Toth P (1990) Knapsack problems: algorithms and computer implementations. Wiley, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martin D, Burstein M, Mcdermott D, Mcilraith S, Paolucci M, Sycara K, Mcguinness DL, Sirin E, Srinivasan N (2007) Bringing semantics to web services with OWL-S. World Wide Web J 10(3):243–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    SoapUI Web Service Mocking (2012) Benchmark tool—
  25. 25.
    Mori G, Buzzi MC, Buzzi M, Leporini B (2010) Structured audio podcasts via Web text-to-speech system. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World Wide Web (WWW’10). Raleigh, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nygren E, Sitaraman RK, Sun J (2010) The akamai network: a platform for high-performance internet applications. SIGOPS Oper Syst Rev 44(3):2–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    OASIS (2007) Web services business process execution language. OASIS StandardsGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    OASIS (2012) Web services for remote portlets (WSRP). OASIS Standards—
  29. 29.
    Pacifici G, Segmuller W, Spreitzer M, Tantawi A (2006) Dynamic estimation of CPU demand of Web traffic. In: Proceedings of first International conference on performance evaluation methodologies and tools (Valuetools ’06)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Papazoglou M, Traverso P, Dustdar S, Leymann F (2007) Service-oriented computing: state of the art and research challenges. Comput 40(11):38–45Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Papazoglou MP (2008) Web services: principles and technology. Prentice Hall, PearsonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Qi L, Tang Y, Dou W, Chen J (2010) Combining local optimization and enumeration for QoS-aware Web service composition. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE international conference on Web services (ICWS’10). Miami, USA, pp 34–41Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ranjan S, Knightly E (2008) High-performance resource allocation and request redirection algorithms for Web clusters. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 19(9):1186–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tong H, Cao J, Zhang S, Li M (2011) A distributed algorithm for web service composition based on service agent model. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 22:2008–2021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Urgaonkar B, Shenoy P, Chandra A, Goyal P, Wood T (2008) Agile dynamic provisioning of multi-tier Internet applications. ACM Trans Auton Adapt Syst 3(1):1:1–1:39Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    WSTest (2012) Web services benchmark —
  37. 37.
    Yu T, Lin KJ (2005) Service selection algorithms for Web services with end-to-end QoS constraints. Inf Syst E Bus Manag 3(2): 103–126Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yu T, Zhang Y, Lin KJ (2007) Efficient algorithms for Web services selection with end-to-end QoS constraints. ACM Trans Web 1(1):6–32Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zeng L, Benatallah B, Ngu AH, Dumas M, Kalagnanam J, Chang H (2004) QoS-aware middleware for Web services composition. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30(5):311–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zhang D (2007) Web content adaptation for mobile handheld devices. Commun ACM 50(2):75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Canali
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michele Colajanni
    • 1
  • Riccardo Lancellotti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information EngineeringUniversity of Modena and Reggio EmiliaModenaItaly

Personalised recommendations