Configuration Logics: Modelling Architecture Styles

  • Anastasia Mavridou
  • Eduard Baranov
  • Simon BliudzeEmail author
  • Joseph Sifakis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9539)


We study a framework for the specification of architecture styles as families of architectures involving a common set of types of components and coordination mechanisms. The framework combines two logics: (1) interaction logics for the specification of architectures as generic coordination schemes involving a configuration of interactions between typed components; (2) configuration logics for the specification of architecture styles as sets of interaction configurations. The presented results build on previous work on architecture modelling in BIP. We show how propositional interaction logic can be extended into a corresponding configuration logic by adding new operators on sets of interaction configurations. We provide a complete axiomatisation of the propositional configuration logic, as well as a decision procedure for checking that an architecture satisfies given logical specifications. To allow genericity of specifications, we study first-order and second-order extensions of the propositional logic. We provide examples illustrating the application of the results to the characterization of architecture styles. Finally, we provide an experimental evaluation using the Maude rewriting system to implement the decision procedure for the propositional logic.


  1. 1.
    Attie, P., Baranov, E., Bliudze, S., Jaber, M., Sifakis, J.: A general framework for architecture composability. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Salaün, G. (eds.) SEFM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8702, pp. 128–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bliudze, S., Sifakis, J.: The algebra of connectors–structuring interaction in BIP. IEEE Trans. Comput. 57(10), 1315–1330 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bliudze, S., Sifakis, J.: Causal semantics for the algebra of connectors. FMSD 36(2), 167–194 (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bliudze, S., Sifakis, J.: Synthesizing glue operators from glue constraints for the construction of component-based systems. In: Apel, S., Jackson, E. (eds.) SC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6708, pp. 51–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Welsley Longman Inc, Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruni, R., Lluch-Lafuente, A., Montanari, U., Tuosto, E.: Style-based architectural reconfigurations. Bull. EATCS 94, 161–180 (2008)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clements, P., Garlan, D., Bass, L., Stafford, J., Nord, R., Ivers, J., Little, R.: Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond. Pearson Education, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Corkill, D.D.: Blackboard systems. AI Expert 6(9), 40–47 (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daigneau, R.: Service Design Patterns: Fundamental Design Solutions for SOAP/WSDL and Restful Web Services. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ehrig, H., König, B.: Deriving bisimulation congruences in the DPO approach to graph rewriting. In: Walukiewicz, I. (ed.) FOSSACS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2987, pp. 151–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferrari, G.-L., Tuosto, E., Hirsch, D., Lanese, I., Montanari, U.: Synchronised hyperedge replacement as a model for service oriented computing. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 22–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garlan, D., Monroe, R., Wile, D.: Acme: An architecture description interchange language.In: Proceedings CASCON 1997, pp. 159–173. IBM Press (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garlan, D., Shaw, M.: An introduction to software architecture. In: Advances in Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 1–39. World Scientific Publishing Company (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Georgiadis, I., Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Self-organising software architectures for distributed systems. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Self-Healing Systems, pp. 33–38. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hirsch, D., Inverardi, P., Montanari, U.: Modeling software architectures and styles with graph grammars and constraint solving. In: Donohoe, P. (ed.) Software Architecture. IFIP—The International Federation for Information Processing, vol. 12, pp. 127–143. Springer, US (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hohpe, G., Woolf, B.: Enterprise Integration Patterns: Designing, Building, and Deploying Messaging Solutions. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jackson, D.: Alloy: a lightweight object modelling notation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11(2), 256–290 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Keller, U.: Some remarks on the definability of transitive closure in first-order logic and Datalog. Internal report, Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI), University of Innsbruck (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koehler, C., Lazovik, A., Arbab, F.: Connector rewriting with high-level replacement systems. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 194(4), 77–92 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krause, C., Maraikar, Z., Lazovik, A., Arbab, F.: Modeling dynamic reconfigurations in Reo using high-level replacement systems. Sci. Comp. Prog. 76(1), 23–36 (2011)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Le Métayer, D.: Describing software architecture styles using graph grammars. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24(7), 521–533 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mavridou, A., Baranov, E., Bliudze, S., Sifakis, J.: Configuration logics - modelling architecture styles. Technical report EPFL-REPORT-206825, EPFL IC IIF RiSD, March 2015.
  23. 23.
    Perry, D.E., Wolf, A.L.: Foundations for the study of software architecture. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 17(4), 40–52 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rozenberg, G. (ed.): Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation. World Scientific, Singapore (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sifakis, J.: Rigorous system design. Found. Trends Electron. Des. Autom. 6, 293–362 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Warmer, J.B., Kleppe, A.G.: The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modeling With UML. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1998)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang, D.-Q., Zhang, K., Cao, J.: A context-sensitive graph grammar formalism for the specification of visual languages. Comput. J. 44(3), 186–200 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anastasia Mavridou
    • 1
  • Eduard Baranov
    • 1
  • Simon Bliudze
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joseph Sifakis
    • 1
  1. 1.École Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations