A Logical Interface Description Language for Components

  • F. Arbab
  • F. S. de Boer
  • M. M. Bonsangue
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1906)


Motivated by our earlier work on the IWIM model and the Manifold language, in this paper, we attend to some of the basic issues in component-based software. We present a formal model for such systems, a formal-logic-based component interface description language that conveys the observable semantics of components, a formal system for deriving the semantics of a composite system out of the semantics of its constituent components, and the conditions under which this derivation system is sound and complete. Our main results in this paper are the theorems that formulate the notion of compositionality and the completeness of the derivation system that supports this property in a component-based system.


Component State Proof System Observable Behavior Component Interface Proof Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    G. Agha, I. Mason, S. Smith, and C. Talcott. A foundation for actor computation Journal of Functional Programming, 1(1):1–69, 1993.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Arbab, M.M. Bonsangue, and F.S. de Boer. A coordination language for mobile components. In Proc. of SAC 2000, pages 166–173, ACM press, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Arbab, I. Herman, and P. Spilling. An overview of Manifold and its implementation. Concurrency: Practice and Experience, 5(1):23–70, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Bergner, A. Rausch, M. Sihling, A. Vilbig An integrated view on componentware: concepts, description techniques, and development process. In R. Lee, editor, Proc. of IASTED Conference on Software Engineering, pages 77–82, ACTA Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Bergner, A. Rausch, M. Sihling, A. Vilbig, and M. Broy. A formal model for componentware. In M. Sitaraman and G. Leavens, editors, Foundation of Component-Based Systems, Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F.S. de Boer. Reasoning about asynchronous communication in dynamically evolving object structures. In Theoretical Computer Science, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F.S. de Boer and M.M. Bonsangue. A compositional model for confluent dynamical data-flow networks. In B. Rovan ed., Proc. 25th MFCS, LNCS, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M.M. Bonsangue, F. Arbab, J.W. de Bakker, J.J.M.M. Rutten, A. Scutellá, and G. Zavattaro. A transition system semantics for the control-driven coordination language MANIFOLD. Theoretical Computer Science, 240(1), July 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Broy. Equations for describing dynamic nets of communicating systems. In Proc. 5th COMPASS workshop, volume 1378 of LNCS, pages 170–187, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Cardelli and A.D. Gordon. Mobile ambients. In Proc. of Foundation of Software Science and Computational Structures, volume 1378 of LNCS, pages 140–155, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Grosu and K. Stølen. A model for mobile point-to-point data-flow networks without channel sharing. In Proc. AMAST’96, LNCS, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    JavaSoft. The JavaBeans component architecture, 1999. Available on line at the
  13. 13.
    He Jifeng, M.B. Josephs, and C.A.R. Hoare. A theory of synchrony and asynchrony. In Proc. of IFIP Working Conference on Programming Concepts and Methods, pages 459–478, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Microsoft Corporation. ActiveX Controls, 1999 Available on line at the
  15. 15.
    R. Milner, J. Parrow, and D. Walker. A calculus of mobile processes, parts I and II. Information and Computation 100:1, 1992, pp. 1–77.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group. CORBA 2.1 specifications, 1997. Available on line at the
  17. 17.
    E.-R. Olderog and C.A.R. Hoare. Specification-oriented semantics for communicating processes. Acta Informatica 23:9–66, 1986.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Shaw, R. De Line, D. Klein, T. Ross, D. Young and G. Zelesnik. Abstraction for software architectures and tools to support them. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21(4):356–372, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Arbab
    • 1
  • F. S. de Boer
    • 2
  • M. M. Bonsangue
    • 1
  1. 1.CWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Utrecht UniversityThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations