Specifying Properties of Dynamic Architectures Using Configuration Traces

  • Diego Marmsoler
  • Mario Gleirscher
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9965)


The architecture of a system describes the system’s overall organization into components and connections between those components. With the emergence of mobile computing, dynamic architectures became increasingly important. In such architectures, components may appear or disappear, and connections may change over time.

Despite the growing importance of dynamic architectures, the specification of properties for those architectures remains a challenge. To address this problem, we introduce the notion of configuration traces to model properties of dynamic architectures. Then, we investigate these properties to identify different types thereof. We show completeness and consistency of these types, i.e., we show that (almost) every property can be separated into these types and that a property of one type does not impact properties of other types.

Configuration traces can be used to specify general properties of dynamic architectures and the separation into different types provides a systematic way for their specification. To evaluate our approach we apply it to the specification and verification of the Blackboard pattern in Isabelle/HOL.



We would like to thank Jonas Eckhardt, Vasileios Koutsoumpas, and the reviewers of ICTAC 2016 for their comments and helpful suggestions.


  1. 1.
    Abowd, G.D., Allen, R., Garlan, D.: Formalizing style to understand descriptions of software architecture. ACM TOSEM 4, 319–364 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen, R., Douence, R., Garlan, D.: Specifying and analyzing dynamic software architectures. In: Astesiano, E. (ed.) FASE 1998. LNCS, vol. 1382, pp. 21–37. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). doi: 10.1007/BFb0053581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allen, R.J.: A formal approach to software architecture. Technical report, DTIC Document (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernardo, M., Ciancarini, P., Donatiello, L.: On the formalization of architectural types with process algebras. ACM SIGSOFT SEN 25, 140–148 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bradbury, J.S., Cordy, J.R., Dingel, J., Wermelinger, M.: A survey of self-management in dynamic software architecture specifications. In: WOSS (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Broy, M.: A logical basis for component-oriented software and systems engineering. Comput. J. 53(10), 1758–1782 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Broy, M.: A model of dynamic systems. In: Bensalem, S., Lakhneck, Y., Legay, A. (eds.) ETAPS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8415, pp. 39–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-54848-2_3 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buschmann, F., Meunier, R., Rohnert, H., Sommerlad, P., Stal, M.: A system of patterns: Pattern-oriented software architecture (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Castro, P.F., Aguirre, N.M., López Pombo, C.G., Maibaum, T.S.E.: Towards managing dynamic reconfiguration of software systems in a categorical setting. In: Cavalcanti, A., Deharbe, D., Gaudel, M.-C., Woodcock, J. (eds.) ICTAC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6255, pp. 306–321. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-14808-8_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clements, P.C.: A survey of architecture description languages. In: IWSSD (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dashofy, E.M., Van der Hoek, A., Taylor, R.N.: A highly-extensible, xml-based architecture description language. In: WICSA, IEEE (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fiadeiro, J.L., Lopes, A.: A model for dynamic reconfiguration in service-oriented architectures. Softw. Syst. Model. 12(2), 349–367 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garlan, D.: Formal modeling and analysis of software architecture: components, connectors, and events. In: Bernardo, M., Inverardi, P. (eds.) SFM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2804, pp. 1–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-39800-4_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hirsch, D., Montanari, U.: Two graph-based techniques for software architecture reconfiguration. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 51, 177–190 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Inverardi, P., Wolf, A.L.: Formal specification and analysis of software architectures using the chemical abstract machine model. IEEE TSE 21, 373–386 (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Le Métayer, D.: Describing software architecture styles using graph grammars. IEEE TSE 24, 521–533 (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luckham, D.C., Kenney, J.J., Augustin, L.M., Vera, J., Bryan, D., Mann, W.: Specification and analysis of system architecture using Rapide. IEEE TSE 21, 336–355 (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Dynamic structure in software architectures. ACM SIGSOFT SEN 21, 3–14 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems: Specification. Springer, New york (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Medvidovic, N.: ADLs and dynamic architecture changes. In: ISAW (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moriconi, M., Qian, X., Riemenschneider, R.A.: Correct architecture refinement. IEEE TSE 21, 356–372 (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/HOL: A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. Springer Science & Business Media, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oquendo, F.: \(\pi \)-ADL: an architecture description language based on the higher-order typed \(\pi \)-calculus for specifying dynamic and mobile software architectures. ACM SIGSOFT SEN 29, 1–14 (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Penix, J., Alexander, P., Havelund, K.: Declarative specification of software architectures. In: ASE (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shaw, M., Garlan, D.: Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, vol. 1. Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, Upper Saddle River (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Spivey, J.M., Abrial, J.: The Z notation (1992)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taylor, R.N., Medvidovic, N., Dashofy, E.M.: Software Architecture: Foundations, Theory, and Practice. Wiley Publishing, Hoboken (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/Isar: a generic framework for human-readable proof documents. From Insight to Proof: Festschrift in Honour of Andrzej Trybulec 10, 277–298 (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wermelinger, M., Lopes, A., Fiadeiro, J.L.: A graph based architectural (re) configuration language. ACM SIGSOFT SEN 26(5), 21–32 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wirsing, M.: Algebraic Specification. MIT Press, Cambridge (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technische Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations