Increasing Reuse in Component Models through Genericity

  • Julien Bigot
  • Christian Pérez
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5791)


A current limitation to component reusability is that component models target to describe a deployed assembly and thus bind the behavior of a component to the data-types it manipulates. This paper studies the feasibility of supporting genericity within component models, including component and port types. The proposed approach works by extending the meta-model of an existing component model. It is applied to the SCA component model; a working prototype shows its feasibility.


Component Model Common Object Request Broker Architecture Xpath Expression Explicit Specialization Algorithmic Skeleton 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bruneton, E., Coupaye, T., Stefani, J.B.: The Fractal Component Model, version 2.0.3 draft. The ObjectWeb Consortium (February 2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Object Management Group: Common Object Request Broker Architecture Specification, Version 3.1, Part 3: CORBA Component Model (January 2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Open Service Oriented Architecture: SCA Service Component Architecture: Assembly Model Specification Version 1.00 (March 2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Allan, B.A., et al.: A Component Architecture for High-Performance Scientific Computing. International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications 20(2), 163–202 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cole, M.: Bringing skeletons out of the closet: a pragmatic manifesto for skeletal parallel programming. Parallel Comput. 30(3), 389–406 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Musser, D.R., Stepanov, A.A.: Generic Programming. In: Gianni, P. (ed.) ISSAC 1988. LNCS, vol. 358, pp. 13–25. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garcia, R., Jarvi, J., Lumsdaine, A., Siek, J.G., Willcock, J.: A comparative study of language support for generic programming. In: OOPSLA, pp. 115–134. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bracha, G.: Generics in the Java Programming Language (July 2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stroustrup, B.: The C++ Programming Language, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Boston (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gregor, D., Järvi, J., Siek, J.G., Stroustrup, B., Reis, G.D., Lumsdaine, A.: Concepts: linguistic support for generic programming in C++. In: OOPSLA, pp. 291–310 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abrahams, D., Gurtovoy, A.: C++ Template Metaprogramming: Concepts, Tools, and Techniques from Boost and Beyond. C++ in Depth Series. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aldinucci, M., Bouziane, H., Danelutto, M., Pérez, C.: Towards Software Component Assembly Language Enhanced with Workflows and Skeletons. In: Joint Workshop on Component-Based High Performance Computing and Component-Based Software Engineering and Software Architecture, CBHPC/CompFrame 2008 (October 2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gorlatch, S., Dünnweber, J.: From Grid Middleware to Grid Applications: Bridging the Gap with HOCs. In: Future Generation Grids. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julien Bigot
    • 1
  • Christian Pérez
    • 2
  1. 1.LIP/INSA RennesFrance
  2. 2.LIP/INRIAFrance

Personalised recommendations