Observability and Controllability of Wireless Software Components

  • Fabien Romeo
  • Franck Barbier
  • Jean-Michel Bruel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4531)


Software components embedded in wireless devices are subject to behavior which cannot be fully and realistically predicted. This calls for a runtime management infrastructure that is able to observe and control the components’ states and to make their behaviors explicit, tangible and understandable, in any case and at any time. In this paper, we propose a framework for remotely administrating the functional behavior of software components deployed on wireless nodes. This framework is based on components which are locally managed by internal managers on the wireless side. The controllable nature of components relies on executable UML models that persist at runtime. On the administration side, models are replicated and synchronized with the models that constitute the inner workings of the wireless components.


Software Component Traffic Light Internal Manager Ubiquitous System External Manager 
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.


  1. 1.
    Wallnau, K.C.: Volume III: A Technology for Predictable Assembly from Certifiable Components. Technical report, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA (2003) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Ommering, R., van der Linden, F., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: The Koala Component Model for Consumer Electronics Software. Computer 33(3), 78–85 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winter, M., Genssler, T., Christoph, A., Nierstrasz, O., Ducasse, S., Wuyts, R., Arvalo, G., Mller, P., Stich, C., Schnhage, B.: Components for Embedded Software – The PECOS Approach. In: Second International Workshop on Composition Languages. In conjunction with 16th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), Malaga, Spain (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cervantes, H., Hall, R.S.: Beanome: A Component Model for the OSGi Framework. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Software Infrastructures for Component-Based Applications on Consumer Devices, Lausanne, Switzerland (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Desertot, M., Cervantes, H., Donsez, D.: FROGi: Fractal components deployment over OSGi. In: 5th International Symposium on Software Composition SC’06, Vienna, Austria (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crnkovic, I.: Component-based Software Engineering for Embedded Systems. In: International Conference on Software engineering, St. Luis, USA, ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Möller, A., Fröberg, J., Nolin, M.: Industrial Requirements on Component Technologies for Embedded Systems. In: International Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering, Edinburgh, Scotland, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kephart, J., Chess, D.: The Vision of Autonomic Computing. In: Computer Magazine, vol. 36, pp. 41–50. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Kreger, H., Harold, W., Williamson, L.: Java and JMX. Addison Wesley, London (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: A Visual Formalism for Complex Systems. Science of Computer Programming 8(3), 231–274 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grieskamp, W., Heisel, M., Dörr, H.: Specifying Embedded Systems with Statecharts and Z: An Agenda for Cyclic Software Components. In: Astesiano, E. (ed.) ETAPS 1998 and FASE 1998. LNCS, vol. 1382, pp. 88–115. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buzato, L.E.: Management of Object-Oriented Action-Based Distributed Programs. PhD thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kopetz, H., Suri, N.: Compositional design of RT systems: A conceptual basis for specification of linking interfaces. In: 6th IEEE International Symposium on Object-oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing, Hokkaido, Japan (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lau, K.K., Elizondo, P.V., Wang, Z.: Exogenous Connectors for Software Components. In: Eighth International SIGSOFT Symposium on Component-based Software Engineering, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Romeo, F., Ballagny, C., Barbier, F.: PauWare : un modèle de composant basé état. In: Journées Composants, Canet en Roussillon, France, pp. 1–10 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martin-Flatin, J.P.: Push vs. Pull in Web-Based Network Management. In: Proc. 6th IFIP/IEEE Intl. Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM’99), Boston, MA, pp. 3–18 (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Romeo, F., Barbier, F.: Management of Wireless Software Components. In: The 10th International Workshop on Component-Oriented Programming in the 19th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Glasgow, Scotland (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garlan, D., Allen, R., Ockerbloom, J.: Architectural Mismatch or Why it’s hard to build systems out of existing parts. In: 17th International Conference on Software Enginneering, Seattle, Washington, ACM SIGSOFT, pp. 179–185 (1995) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pazzi, L.: Part-Whole Statecharts for the Explicit Representation of Compound Behaviors. In: UML, pp. 541–555 (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barbier, F., Henderson-Sellers, B., Parc, A.L., Bruel, J.M.: Formalization of the Whole-Part Relationship in the Unied Modeling Language. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 29(5), 459–470 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabien Romeo
    • 1
  • Franck Barbier
    • 1
  • Jean-Michel Bruel
    • 1
  1. 1.LIUPPA, Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, Av. de l’Université, B.P. 1155, F-64013 PAUFrance

Personalised recommendations