Advertisement

Non-desynchronizable Service Choreographies

  • Gero Decker
  • Alistair Barros
  • Frank Michael Kraft
  • Niels Lohmann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5364)

Abstract

A precise definition of interaction behavior between services is a prerequisite for successful business-to-business integration. Service choreographies provide a view on message exchanges and their ordering constraints from a global perspective. Assuming message sending and receiving as one atomic step allows to reduce the modelers’ effort. As downside, problematic race conditions resulting in deadlocks might appear when realizing the choreography using services that exchange messages asynchronously. This paper presents typical issues when desynchronizing service choreographies. Solutions from practice are discussed and a formal approach based on Petri nets is introduced for identifying desynchronizable choreographies.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Curbera, F., Leymann, F., Storey, T., Ferguson, D., Weerawarana, S.: Web Services Platform Architecture: SOAP, WSDL, WS-Policy, WS-Addressing, WS-BPEL, WS-Reliable Messaging and More. Prentice Hall PTR, Englewood Cliffs (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kavantzas, N., Burdett, D., Ritzinger, G., Lafon, Y.: Web Services Choreography Description Language Version 1.0, W3C Candidate Recommendation. Technical report (2005), http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-cdl-10
  3. 3.
    Decker, G., Barros, A.: Interaction Modeling using BPMN. In: ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Benatallah, B., Paik, H.-Y. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2007. LNCS, vol. 4928, pp. 208–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Decker, G., Weske, M.: Local enforceability in Interaction Petri Nets. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 305–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reisig, W.: Petri Nets. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Glabbeek, R.J., Weijland, W.P.: Branching time and abstraction in bisimulation semantics. J. ACM 43(3), 555–600 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fu, X., Bultan, T., Su, J.: Conversation protocols: A formalism for specification and analysis of reactive electronic services. Theor. Comput. Sci. 328(1-2), 19–37 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmidt, K.: LoLA: A Low Level Analyser. In: Nielsen, M., Simpson, D. (eds.) ICATPN 2000. LNCS, vol. 1825, pp. 465–474. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dolev, S.: Self-stabilization. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zaha, J.M., Barros, A., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Let’s Dance: A language for service behavior modeling. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4275, pp. 145–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quartel, D., Dijkman, R., van Sinderen, M.: Methodological support for service-oriented design with ISDL. In: Proc. ICSOC 2004, pp. 1–10. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Su, J., Bultan, T., Fu, X., Zhao, X.: Towards a theory of web service choreographies. In: Dumas, M., Heckel, R. (eds.) WS-FM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4937, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Busi, N., Gorrieri, R., Guidi, C., Lucchi, R., Zavattaro, G.: Choreography and orchestration: A synergic approach for system design. In: Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Traverso, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3826, pp. 228–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martens, A.: Analyzing web service based business processes. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fu, X., Bultan, T., Su, J.: Analysis of interacting BPEL web services. In: Proc. WWW 2004, pp. 621–630. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Canal, C., Pimentel, E., Troya, J.M.: Compatibility and inheritance in software architectures. Sci. Comput. Program. 41(2), 105–138 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Puhlmann, F., Weske, M.: Interaction soundness for service orchestrations. In: Dan, A., Lamersdorf, W. (eds.) ICSOC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4294, pp. 302–313. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lohmann, N.: Correcting deadlocking service choreographies using a simulation-based graph edit distance. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 132–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fu, X., Bultan, T., Su, J.: Synchronizability of conversations among web services. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 31(12), 1042–1055 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reisig, W.: Elements of Distributed Algorithms: Modeling and Analysis with Petri Nets. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    OMG: Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Specification, Final Adopted Specification. Technical report, Object Management Group, OMG (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gero Decker
    • 1
  • Alistair Barros
    • 2
  • Frank Michael Kraft
    • 3
  • Niels Lohmann
    • 4
  1. 1.Hasso-Plattner-InstituteUniversity of PotsdamGermany
  2. 2.SAP Research CentreBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.SAP AGWalldorfGermany
  4. 4.Institut für InformatikUniversität RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations