Behavioural models for distributed Fractal components

  • Tomás Barros
  • Rabéa Ameur-Boulifa
  • Antonio Cansado
  • Ludovic Henrio
  • Eric Madelaine


This paper presents a formal behavioural specification framework for specifying and verifying the correct behaviour of distributed Fractal components. The first contribution is a parameterised and hierarchical behavioural model called pNets that serves as a low-level semantic framework for expressing the behaviour of various classes of distributed languages and as a common internal format for our tools. Then, we use this model to define the generation of behavioural models for applications ranging from sequential Fractal components, to distributed objects, and finally to distributed components. Our models are able to characterise both functional and non-functional behaviours and the interaction between the two concerns. Finally, this work has resulted in the development of tools allowing the non-expert programmer to specify the behaviour of his components and (semi)automatically verify properties of his application.


Hierarchical components Distributed asynchronous components Formal verification Behavioural specification Model-Checking 


  1. 1.
    Bruneton E, Coupaye T, Leclercp M, Quema V, Stefani J (2004) An open component model and its support in java. In: 7th int symp on component-based software engineering (CBSE-7), LNCS, vol 3054. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    CoreGRID, Programming Model Institute (2006) Basic features of the grid component model (assessed). Technical report, Deliverable D.PM.04.
  3. 3.
    Milner R (1989) Communication and concurrency. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs ISBN 0-13-114984-9Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergstra J, Pose A, Smolka S (2001) Handbook of process algebra. North-Holland, AmsterdamMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arnold A (1994) Finite transition systems. Semantics of communicating sytems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Milner R, Parrow J, Walker D (1992) A calculus of mobile processes. Inf Comput 100(1):1–77MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garavel H, Lang F, Mateescu R, Serve W (2007) CADP 2006: a toolbox for the construction and analysis of distrbuted processes. In: CAV 2007 conference. Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garavel H, Lang F (2002) NTIF: a general symbolic model for communicating sequential processes with data. In: Proceedings of FORTE’02 (Houston), LNCS, vol 2529. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roscoe A (1994) Model-checking CSP. In: A classical mind, essays in honour of C.A.R. Hoare. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scattergood J (1998) The semantics and implementation of machine-readable CSP. PhD thesis, Oxford Un. Computing LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Magee J, Kramer J (2006) Concurrency: state models and java programs, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Poizat P, Royer J, Salaun G (2006) Bounded analysis and decomposition for behavioural descriptions of components. In: FMOODS, LNCS, vol 4037. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Poizat P, Royer J (2006) A formal architectural description language based on transition systems and modal logic. J Univers Comput Sci 12(12):1741–1782Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barros T, Boulifa R, Madelaine E (2004) Parameterized models for distributed Java objects. In: Forte’04 conference. LNCS, vol 3235. Springer, MadridGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boulifa R (2004) Génération de modèles comportementaux des applications réparties. PhD thesis, University of Nice - Sophia Antipolis – UFR SciencesGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barros T, Henrio L, Madelaine E (2005) Behavioural models for hierarchical components. In: Godefroid P (ed) Model checking software, 12th int SPIN workshop, LNCS, vol 3639. Springer, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barros T (2005) Formal specification and verification of distributed component systems. PhD thesis, University of Nice - Sophia AntipolisGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Caromel D, Delbé C, di Costanzo A, Leyton M (2006) ProActive: an integrated platform for programming and running applications on grids and P2P systems. Comput Methods Sci Technol 12(1):69–77Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Caromel D, Henrio L, Serpette B (2004) Asynchronous and deterministic objects. In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on principles of programming languages. ACM, New York, pp 123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Caromel D, Henrio L (2005) A theory of distributed object. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin H (1996) Symbolic transition graph with assignment. In: Montanari U, Sassone V (eds) CONCUR ’96, LNCS, vol 1119. Pisa, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lakas A (1996) Les Transformations Lotomaton: une contribution à la pré-implémentation des systèmes Lotos. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Paris VIGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Najm E, Lakas A, Serouchni A, Madelaine E, de Simone R (1992) ALTO: an interactive transformation tool for LOTOS and LOTOMATON. In: Bolognesi T, Brinksma E, Vissers C (eds) Third lotosphere workshop and seminar, PisaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Madelaine E (1992) Verification tools from the CONCUR project. In: Rozenberg G (ed) EATCS Bull, vol 47. B. Rovan, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cleaveland R, Riely J (1994) Testing-based abstractions for value-passing systems. In: CONCUR’94, LNCS, vol 836. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cleaveland R, Hennessy M (1993) Testing equivalence as a bisimulation equivalence. Form Asp Comput 5:1–20MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Attali I, Barros T, Madelaine E (2004) Formalisation and proofs of the chilean electronic invoices system. In: Proc. of the XXIV international conference of the Chilean computer science society (SCCC’04). IEEE, Arica Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barros T, Cansado A, Madelaine E, Rivera M (2006) Model checking distributed components: the Vercors platform. In: 3rd workshop on formal aspects of component systems. ENTCS, PragueGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ahumada S, Apvrille L, Barros T, Cansado A, Madelaine E, Salageanu E (2007) Specifying fractal and GCM components With UML. In: Proc of the XXVI international conference of the Chilean computer science society (SCCC’07). IEEE, IquiqueGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institut TELECOM and Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomás Barros
    • 1
  • Rabéa Ameur-Boulifa
    • 2
  • Antonio Cansado
    • 3
  • Ludovic Henrio
    • 3
  • Eric Madelaine
    • 3
  1. 1.Universidad de ChiliSantiagoChile
  2. 2.GET/ENST/LabSoC, Telecom ParistechSophia-Antipolis CedexFrance
  3. 3.INRIA Sophia-Antipolis, CNRSSophia-Antipolis CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations