Supporting Real-Life Applications in Hierarchical Component Systems

  • Pavel Ježek
  • Tomáš Bureš
  • Petr Hnětynka
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 253)


Component-based development has become a widely accepted programming technique. However, the current situation in usage of component systems is that most of the widely used systems are flat ones while hierarchical systems (which are more advanced and elaborated) are rather ignored by industry. In our view, the situation is caused by a poor support of features necessary to built real-life applications in hierarchical component systems. In the paper, based on several real-life case-studies, we show a set of typical architecture patterns, which have to be supported by hierarchical component systems, and also we evaluate how these patterns are supported by current systems.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aldrich, J., Chambers, C., Notkin, D.: ArchJava: Connecting Software Architecture to Implementation. In: Proc. of ICSE 2002, Orlando, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker, S., Koziolek, H., Reussner, R.: Model-based Performance Prediction with the Palladio Component Model. In: Proc. of WOSP 2007, pp. 56–67 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertolino, A., Mirandola, R.: CB-SPE tool: Putting component-based performance engineering into practice. In: Crnković, I., Stafford, J.A., Schmidt, H.W., Wallnau, K. (eds.) CBSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3054, pp. 233–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruneton, E., Coupaye, T., Leclercq, M., Quema, 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) (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bulej, L., Bureš, T., Coupaye, T., Děcký, M., Ježek, P., Parízek, P., Plášil, F., Poch, T., Rivierre, N., Šerý, O., Tůma, P.: CoCoME in fractal. In: Rausch, A., Reussner, R., Mirandola, R., Plášil, F. (eds.) The Common Component Modeling Example. LNCS, vol. 5153, pp. 357–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bureš, T., Děcký, M., Hnětynka, P., Kofroň, J., Parízek, P., Plášil, F., Poch, T., Šerý, O., Tůma, P.: CoCoME in SOFA. In: Rausch, A., Reussner, R., Mirandola, R., Plášil, F. (eds.) The Common Component Modeling Example. LNCS, vol. 5153, pp. 388–417. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bures, T., Hnetynka, P., Plasil, F.: SOFA 2.0: Balancing Advanced Features in a Hierarchical Component Model. In: Proc. of SERA 2006, Seattle, USA, pp. 40–48 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bures, T., Jezek, P., Malohlava, M., Poch, T., Sery, O.: Fine-grained Entities in Component Architectures, Tech. Rep. 2009/5, Dep. of SW Eng., Charles University, Czech Rep. (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Component Reliability Extensions for Fractal Component Model,
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Genssler, T., Christoph, A., Winter, M., Nierstrasz, O., Ducasse, S., Wuyts, R., Arevalo, G., Schonhage, B., Muller, P., Stich, C.: Components for embedded software: the PECOS approach. In: Proc. of CASES 2002, New York, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hansson, H., Akerholm, M., Crnkovic, I., Torngren, M.: SaveCCM — A Component Model for Safety-Critical Real-Time Systems. In: EUROMICRO 2004: Proc. of 30th EUROMICRO Conf., Washington, USA, pp. 627–635 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hirsch, D., Kramer, J., Magee, J., Uchitel, S.: Modes for software architectures. In: Gruhn, V., Oquendo, F. (eds.) EWSA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4344, pp. 113–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hnětynka, P., Plášil, F.: Dynamic Reconfiguration and Access to Services in Hierarchical Component Models. In: Gorton, I., Heineman, G.T., Crnković, I., Schmidt, H.W., Stafford, J.A., Szyperski, C., Wallnau, K. (eds.) CBSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4063, pp. 352–359. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Inverardi, P., Wolf, A.L.: Formal Specification and Analysis of Software Architectures Using the Chemical Abstract Machine Model. IEEE Trans. on Soft. Eng. 21(4) (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Julia: a reference Fractal implementation,
  17. 17.
    Kofron, J., Adamek, J., Bures, T., Jezek, P., Mencl, V., Parizek, P., Plasil, F.: Checking Fractal Component Behavior Using Behavior Protocols. In: 5th Fractal Workshop, Nantes, France (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Dynamic Structure in Software Architectures. In: Proc. of FSE’4, San Francisco, USA (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Plasil, F., Balek, D., Janecek, R.: SOFA/DCUP: Architecture for Component Trading and Dynamic Updating. In: Proc. of ICCDS 1998, Annapolis, USA (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Plasil, F., Visnovsky, S.: Behavior Protocols for Software Components. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 28(11), 1056–1076 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Sun Microsystems: JSR 220 – Enterprise JavaBeans 3.0 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Szyperski, C.: Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    The Common Component Modeling Example: Comparing Software Component Models (CoCoME),
  25. 25.
    van Ommering, R., van der Linden, F., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: The Koala Component Model for Consumer Electronics Software. IEEE Computer 33(3), 78–85 (2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    W3C Web Services,
  27. 27.
    Wermelingera, M., Fiadeiro, J.L.: A graph transformation approach to software architecture reconfiguration. Science of Computer Programming 44(2) (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pavel Ježek
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tomáš Bureš
    • 1
    • 2
  • Petr Hnětynka
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Software Engineering, Faculty of Mathematics and PhysicsCharles UniversityPrague 1Czech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of Computer ScienceAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPrague 8Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations