Experiences from Developing a Component Technology Agnostic Adaptation Framework

  • Eli Gjørven
  • Frank Eliassen
  • Romain Rouvoy
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5282)


Systems are increasingly expected to adapt themselves to changing requirements and environmental situations with minimum user interactions. A challenge for self-adaptation is the increasing heterogeneity of applications and services, integrating multiple systems implemented in different platform and language technologies. In order to cope with this heterogeneity, self-adaptive systems need to support the integration of various technologies, allowing the target adaptive system to be built from subsystems realized with different implementation technologies. In this paper, we argue that state-of-the adaptation frameworks do not lend themselves to ease technology integration and exploitation of advanced features and opportunities offered by different implementation technologies. We present the QuA adaptation framework and its support for technology integration and exploitation. Unlike other adaptation frameworks the adaptation framework of QuA is able to exploit a wide range of adaptation mechanisms and technologies, without modification to the adaptation framework itself. As a demonstration of this property of QuA, we describe the integration of an advanced component model technology, the Fractal component model, with the QuA framework. Our experience from this exercise shows that the QuA adaptation framework indeed allows integration of advanced implementation technologies with moderate effort.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Oreizy, P., Gorlick, M.M., Taylor, R.N., Heimbigner, D., Johnson, G., Medvidovic, N., Quilici, A., Rosenblum, D.S., Wolf, A.L.: An architecture-based approach to self-adaptive software. IEEE Intelligent Systems 14(3), 54–62 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    David, P.C., Ledoux, T.: An Aspect-Oriented Approach for Developing Self-Adaptive Fractal Components. In: Löwe, W., Südholt, M. (eds.) SC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4089. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batista, T.V., Joolia, A., Coulson, G.: Managing Dynamic Reconfiguration in Componentbased Systems. In: Morrison, R., Oquendo, F. (eds.) EWSA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3527, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sun microsystems: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition (Java EE),
  5. 5.
    OSGi Alliance: OSGi Service Platform Release 4,
  6. 6.
    Microsoft. Net: Microsoft. NET Framework 3.5,
  7. 7.
    Erl, T.: Service-Oriented Architecture: Concepts, Technology, and Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erradi, A., Maheshwari, P., Tosic, V.: Policy-Driven Middleware for Self-adaptation of Web Services Compositions. In: van Steen, M., Henning, M. (eds.) Middleware 2006. LNCS, vol. 4290, pp. 62–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuropka, D., Weske, M.: Implementing a Semantic Service Provision Platform Concepts and Experiences. Journal Wirtschaftsinformatik – Special Issue on Service Oriented Architectures and Web Services 1, 16–24 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bruneton, E., Coupaye, T., Leclercq, M., Quéma, V., Stefani, J.B.: The FRACTAL component model and its support in Java. Software Practice and Experience – Special Issue on Experiences with Auto-adaptive and Reconfigurable Systems 36(11/12), 1257–1284 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martin, R.C.: Agile Software Development, Principles, Patterns, and Practices. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kephart, J.O., Das, R.: Achieving Self-Management via Utility Functions. IEEE Internet Computing 11(1), 40–48 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Georgiadis, I., Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Self-Organising Software Architectures for Distributed Systems. In: 1st International Workshop on Self-Healing Systems (WOSS 2002), pp. 33–38. ACM, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alia, M., Eide, V.S.W., Paspallis, N., Eliassen, F., Hallsteinsen, S.O., Papadopoulos, G.A.: A Utility-Based Adaptivity Model for Mobile Applications. In: 21st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA 2007), pp. 556–563. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bracha, G., Ungar, D.: Mirrors: Design Principles for Meta-level Facilities of Object-Oriented Programming Languages. In: 19th Annual Conference on Object-oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA 2004), pp. 331–344. ACM, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gjørven, E., Eliassen, F., Lund, K., Eide, V.S.W., Staehli, R.: Self-Adaptive Systems: A Middleware Managed Approach. In: Keller, A., Martin-Flatin, J.-P. (eds.) SelfMan 2006. LNCS, vol. 3996, pp. 15–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bouchenak, S., Palma, N.D., Hagimont, D., Taton, C.: Autonomic Management of Clustered Applications. In: International Conference on Cluster Computing (Cluster 2006). IEEE, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roy, P.V., Ghodsi, A., Haridi, S., Stefani, J.B., Coupaye, T., Reinefeld, A., Winter, E., Yap, R.: Self-management of large-scale distributed systems by combining peer-to-peer networksand components. Technical Report18, CoreGRID - Network of Excellence (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leclercq, M., Özcan, A.E., Quéma, V., Stefani, J.B.: Supporting Heterogeneous Architecture Descriptions in an Extensible Toolset. In: 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2007), pp. 209–219. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eli Gjørven
    • 1
  • Frank Eliassen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Romain Rouvoy
    • 2
  1. 1.Simula Research LaboratoryLysakerNorway
  2. 2.Dept. of InformaticsUniversity of OsloBlindernNorway

Personalised recommendations