Advertisement

CoCoME in Fractal

  • Lubomír Bulej
  • Tomáš Bureš
  • Thierry Coupaye
  • Martin Děcký
  • Pavel Ježek
  • Pavel Parízek
  • František Plášil
  • Tomáš Poch
  • Nicolas Rivierre
  • Ondřej Šerý
  • Petr Tůma
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5153)

Abstract

This chapter presents our solution to the CoCoME assignment that is based on the Fractal component model. The solution involves (i) modeling architecture in Fractal ADL, (ii) specification of component behavior via behavior protocols, (iii) checking compatibility of components, (iv) verification of correspondence between component code and behavior specification, and (v) run-time monitoring of non-functional properties. Among the issues we have faced was the need to modify the architecture - the component hierarchy was reorganized in order to improve clarity of the design and the hierarchical bus was split into two independent buses. These were modeled by primitive components, since Fractal does not support message bus as a first-class entity. Since the CoCoME assignment does not include a complete UML behavior specification (e.g. via activity diagrams and state charts), behavior protocols for all the components are based on the provided plain-English use cases, the UML sequence diagrams, and the reference Java implementation.

Keywords

Reference Implementation Simple Network Management Protocol Composite Binding Primitive Component Behavior Protocol 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adamek, J., Bures, T., Jezek, P., Kofron, J., Mencl, V., Parizek, P., Plasil, F.: Component Reliability Extensions for Fractal Component Model (2006), http://kraken.cs.cas.cz/ft/public/public_index.phtml
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Baude, F., Baduel, L., Caromel, D., Contes, A., Huet, F., Morel, M., Quilici, R.: Programming, Composing, Deploying for the Grid. In: Cunha, J.C., Rana, O.F. (eds.) GRID COMPUTING: Software Environments and Tools. Springer, Heidelberg (January 2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruneton, E., Coupaye, T., Leclercq, M., Quema, V., Stefani, J.B.: The FRACTAL component model and its support in Java. Softw., Pract. Exper. 36(11-12) (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruneton, E., Coupaye, T., Stefani, J.B.: Fractal Component Model, version 2.0-3 (February 2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Java Management Extensions (JMX) Specification, version 2.0, JSR 255, http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=255
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Layaida, O., Hagimont, D.: PLASMA: A Component-based Framework for Building Self-Adaptive Applications. In: Proceedings of SPIE/IS&T Symposium On Electronic Imaging, Conference on Embedded Multimedia Processing and Communications, San Jose, CA, USA (January 2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Loiret, F., Servat, D., Seinturier, L.: A First Experimentation on High-Level Tooling Support upon Fractal. In: Proceedings of the 5th International ECOOP Workshop on Fractal Component Model (Fractal 2006), Nantes, France (July 2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Magee, J., Dulay, N., Eisenbach, S., Kramer, J.: Specifying Distributed Software Architecture, Proceeding of the 5th European Software Engineering Conference (ESE’C 1995). In: Botella, P., Schäfer, W. (eds.) ESEC 1995. LNCS, vol. 989, pp. 137–153. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mencl, V., Bures, T.: Microcomponent-Based Component Controllers: A Foundation for Component Aspects. In: Proceedings of APSEC 2005, Taipei, Taiwan, December 2005, IEEE CS, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mencl, V., Polak, M.: UML 2.0 Components and Fractal: An Analysis. In: Proceedings of the 5th International ECOOP Workshop on Fractal Component Model (Fractal 2006), Nantes, France (July 2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Microsoft .NET Framework, http://www.microsoft.com/net/
  23. 23.
    Object Management Group, Corba Components, version 3.0 (June 2002), http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/02-06-65.pdf
  24. 24.
    OMG, Object Management Group: UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time (2005), http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2005-01-02
  25. 25.
    Parízek, P., Plášil, F.: Modeling Environment for Compoment Model Checking from Hierarchical Architecture. In: Proceedings of Formal Aspects of Component Software (FACS 2006), Prague, Czech Republic (September 2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parízek, P., Plášil, F., Kofroň, J.: Model checking of Software Components: Combining Java PathFinder and Behavior Protocol Model Checker. In: Proceedings of 30th IEEE/NASA Sofrware Engineering Workshop (SEW-30), January 2007, pp. 133–141. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Plášil, F., Višňovský, S.: Behavior Protocols for Software Components. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(11) (November 2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Seinturier, L., Pessemier, N., Duchien, L., Coupaye, T.: A Component Model Engineered with Components and Aspects. In: Gorton, I., Heineman, G.T., Crnković, I., Schmidt, H.W., Stafford, J.A., Szyperski, C.A., Wallnau, K. (eds.) CBSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4063. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), RFC (1157), http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1157.html
  30. 30.
    Sun Microsystems, JSR 220: Enterprise JavaBeansTM,Version 3.0 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    Visser, W., Havelund, K., Brat., G., Park, S., Lerda, F.: Model Checking Programs. Automated Software Engineering Journal 10(2) (April 2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lubomír Bulej
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tomáš Bureš
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thierry Coupaye
    • 3
  • Martin Děcký
    • 1
  • Pavel Ježek
    • 1
  • Pavel Parízek
    • 1
  • František Plášil
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tomáš Poch
    • 1
  • Nicolas Rivierre
    • 3
  • Ondřej Šerý
    • 1
  • Petr Tůma
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Software Engineering Faculty of Mathematics and PhysicsCharles UniversityCzech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of Computer ScienceAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicCzechRepublic
  3. 3.France Telecom R&D Issy les MoulineauxFrance

Personalised recommendations