Orchestration Synthesis for Real-Time Service Contracts
Abstract
Service contracts offer a way to define the desired behavioural compliance of a composition of services, characterised by the fulfilment of all requirements (e.g. service requests) by obligations (e.g. service offers). Depending on their granularity, requirements may vary according to their criticality and contain real-time aspects (e.g. service expiration time). Synthesis of safe orchestrations, the standard method to refine spurious compositions into compliant ones, is of paramount importance. Ideally, safe orchestrations solve competition among matching requests/offers, respecting criticalities and time constraints, in the best possible way. The contribution of this paper is (i) the introduction of timed service contract automata, a novel formalisation of service contracts with (ii) real-time constraints and (iii) service requests with varying levels of criticality, and a means to compute their (iv) composition and (v) safe orchestration. Orchestration is based on the synthesis of the most permissive controller from supervisory control theory, computed using the concept of zones from timed games. An intuitive example illustrates the contribution.
References
- 1.Georgakopoulos, D., Papazoglou, M.P.: Service-Oriented Computing. MIT, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
- 2.Bouguettaya, A., et al.: A service computing manifesto: the next 10 years. Commun. ACM 60(4), 64–72 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Bartoletti, M., Cimoli, T., Zunino, R.: Compliance in behavioural contracts: a brief survey. In: Bodei, C., Ferrari, G.-L., Priami, C. (eds.) Programming Languages with Applications to Biology and Security. LNCS, vol. 9465, pp. 103–121. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25527-9_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Basile, D., Degano, P., Ferrari, G.L.: A formal framework for secure and complying services. J. Supercomput. 69(1), 43–52 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Basile, D., Degano, P., Ferrari, G.L.: Automata for specifying and orchestrating service contracts. Log. Meth. Comput. Sci. 12(4:6), 1–51 (2016)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 6.Basile, D., Di Giandomenico, F., Gnesi, S., Degano, P., Ferrari, G.L.: Specifying variability in service contracts. In: VaMoS 2017, pp. 20–27. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
- 7.Ramadge, P.J., Wonham, W.M.: Supervisory control of a class of discrete event processes. SIAM J. Control Optim. 25(1), 206–230 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Basile, D., ter Beek, M.H., Di Giandomenico, F., Gnesi, S.: Orchestration of dynamic service product lines with featured modal contract automata. In: SPLC 2017, pp. 117–122. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
- 9.Asarin, E., Maler, O., Pnueli, A., Sifakis, J.: Controller synthesis for timed automata. IFAC Proc. Vol. 31(18), 447–452 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Cassez, F., David, A., Fleury, E., Larsen, K.G., Lime, D.: Efficient on-the-fly algorithms for the analysis of timed games. In: Abadi, M., de Alfaro, L. (eds.) CONCUR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3653, pp. 66–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11539452_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Hüttel, H., et al.: Foundations of session types and behavioural contracts. ACM Comput. Surv. 49(1), 3:1–3:36 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A.: Interface automata. In: ESEC/FSE 2001, pp. 109–120. ACM (2001)Google Scholar
- 13.Lynch, N.A., Tuttle, M.R.: An introduction to input/output automata. CWI Q. 2(3), 219–246 (1989)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 14.Alur, R., Dill, D.L.: A theory of timed automata. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 126(2), 183–235 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.David, A., Larsen, K.G., Legay, A., Nyman, U., Wąsowski, A.: Timed I/O automata. In: HSCC 2010, pp. 91–100. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
- 16.Larsen, K.G., Nyman, U., Wąsowski, A.: Modal I/O automata for interface and product line theories. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 64–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71316-6_6CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 17.Azzopardi, S., Pace, G.J., Schapachnik, F., Schneider, G.: Contract automata. Artif. Intell. Law 24(3), 203–243 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Bouyer, P., Markey, N., Sankur, O.: Robust reachability in timed automata: a game-based approach. In: Czumaj, A., Mehlhorn, K., Pitts, A., Wattenhofer, R. (eds.) ICALP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7392, pp. 128–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31585-5_15CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 19.David, A., et al.: UPPAAL DBM Library (2017)Google Scholar
- 20.Legay, A., Traonouez, L.-M.: PyEcdar: towards open source implementation for timed systems. In: Van Hung, D., Ogawa, M. (eds.) ATVA 2013. LNCS, vol. 8172, pp. 460–463. Springer, Cham (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02444-8_35CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 21.Basile, D., Degano, P., Ferrari, G.-L., Tuosto, E.: Playing with our CAT and communication-centric applications. In: Albert, E., Lanese, I. (eds.) FORTE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9688, pp. 62–73. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39570-8_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Basile, D., Di Giandomenico, F., Gnesi, S.: FMCAT: supporting dynamic service-based product lines. In: SPLC 2017, pp. 3–8. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
- 23.Basile, D., ter Beek, M.H., Gnesi, S.: Modelling and analysis with featured modal contract automata. In: SPLC 2018. ACM (2018)Google Scholar