Advertisement

Dealing with Active and Stateful Services in the Service-Oriented Architecture

  • Haldor Samset
  • Rolv Bræk
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4907)

Abstract

Services in SOA are typically considered to be of passive nature, providing functionality that solely execute upon invocation. Additionally, stateless services are commonly advocated as a modeling principle of todays SOA style.This paper argues that services could be of an active nature, and that services often involve sessions with stateful behavior. We suggest an approach for modeling active and stateful services, using UML 2 Collaborations and state machines. This forms a behavioral contract, and separates the modeling of service logic from the service implementation, allowing for validating the asserted service behavior using a model checker.

Keywords

Service-oriented architecture service modeling collaboration-based stateless stateful behavioral contract 

References

  1. 1.
    Box, D.: A guide to developing and running connected systems with indigo. MSDN Magazine 19(1) (January 2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bræk, R.: Using roles with types and objects for service development. In: Yongchareon, T., Aagesen, F.A., Wuwongse, V. (eds.) SMARTNET. IFIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 160, pp. 265–278. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bræk, R., Melby, G.: Model-Driven Service Engineering. In: Model-Driven Software Development. Part III, pp. 385–401. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Erl, T.: Service-Oriented Architecture: Concepts, Technology, and Design. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Erl, T.: A W3C Web Services Glossary (March 2007), http://www.ws-standards.com/glossary.asp
  6. 6.
    Floch, J., Bræk, R.: ICT convergence: Modeling issues. In: Amyot, D., Williams, A.W. (eds.) SAM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3319, pp. 237–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parlay Group. Parlay X Web Services Specification, Version 2.1 - Short Messaging (2006), http://www.parlay.org/en/specifications/pxws.asp
  8. 8.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN model checker: Primer and reference manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kraemer, F.A., Herrmann, P., Bræk, R.: Aligning UML 2.0 state machines and temporal logic for the efficient execution of services. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4276, pp. 1613–1632. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kraemer, F.A., Samset, H.: Ramses User Guide. Avantel Technical Report 1/2006. Technical report, Department of Telematics, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mencl, V.: Specifying component behavior with port state machines. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 101C, 129–153 (2004); In: de Boer, F., Bonsangue, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on the Compositional Verification of UML Models CVUMLGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moreau, J.-J., Weerawarana, S., Ryman, A., Chinnici, R.: Web services description language (WSDL) version 2.0 part 1: Core language. W3C recommendation, W3C (June 2007), http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-wsdl20-20070626
  13. 13.
    Natis, Y., Schulte, R.: Advanced SOA for advanced enterprise projects. Technical report, Gartner Group (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    OASIS. Reference Model for Service Oriented Architecture v1.0 (October 2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language 2.0 Superstructure Specification (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quartel, D.A.C., Steen, M.W.A., Pokraev, S., van Sinderen, M.: COSMO: A conceptual framework for service modelling and refinement. Information Systems Frontiers 9(2-3), 225–244 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reenskaug, T., Wold, P., Lehne, O.A.: Working with Objects: The OOram Software Engineering Method. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rößler, F., Geppert, B., Gotzhein, R.: Collaboration-based design of SDL systems. In: Reed, R., Reed, J. (eds.) SDL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2078, pp. 72–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rößler, F., Geppert, B., Gotzhein, R.: Cosdl: An experimental language for collaboration specification. In: Sherratt, E. (ed.) SAM 2002. LNCS, vol. 2599, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sanders, R.T.: Implementing from SDL. Telektronikk 96(4) (2000) ISSN 0085-7130Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sanders, R.T.: Collaborations, Semantic Interfaces and Service Goals - a new way forward for Service Engineering. PhD thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sanders, R.T., Bræk, R., Bochmann, G., Amyot, D.: Service discovery and component reuse with semantic interfaces. In: 12th SDL Forum, Grimstad, Norway (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sanders, R.T., Castejón, H.N., Kraemer, F.A., Bræk, R.: Using UML 2.0 collaborations for compositional service specification. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 460–475. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vissers, C.A., Logrippo, L.: The importance of the service concept in the design of data communications protocols. In: Diaz, M. (ed.) PSTV, pp. 3–17. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1985)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haldor Samset
    • 1
  • Rolv Bræk
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of TelematicsNTNUTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations