Compositional Construction of Real-Time Dataflow Networks

  • Stephanie Kemper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6116)


Increasing sizes of present-day distributed software systems call for coordination models which are both modular and scalable. Precise modelling of real-life applications further requires the notion of real-time.

In this paper, we present a modular formal development of a compositional model for real-time coordination in dataflow networks. While real-time dataflow networks are typically asynchronous, our approach includes coordination patterns which combine, but are not limited to, synchrony and asynchrony. We define a constraint- and SAT-based encoding, which allows us to benefit from high-end constraint solving techniques when inspecting valid interactions of the system.


Real-Time Dataflow Networks Component-Based Software Construction Coordination Constraint Solving SAT 


  1. 1.
    Alur, R.: Timed automata. In: Halbwachs, N., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 1999. LNCS, vol. 1633, pp. 8–22. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apt, K.R.: Principles of Constraint Programming. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arbab, F.: \(\mathcal{R}\mathsf{eo}\): a channel-based coordination model for component composition. Mathematical Structures in Comp. Sci. 14(3), 329–366 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baier, C., Sirjani, M., Arbab, F., Rutten, J.J.M.M.: Modeling component connectors in \(\mathcal{R}\mathsf{eo}\) by constraint automata. Sci. Comp. Prog. 61(2), 75–113 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonsangue, M., Clarke, D., Silva, A.: Automata for Context-Dependent Connectors. In: Field, J., Vasconcelos, V.T. (eds.) COORDINATION 2009. LNCS, vol. 5521, pp. 184–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brock, J.D., Ackerman, W.B.: Scenarios: A model of non-determinate computation. In: Díaz, J., Ramos, I. (eds.) Formalization of Programming Concepts. LNCS, vol. 107, pp. 252–259. Springer, Heidelberg (1981)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke, D., Costa, D., Arbab, F.: Connector colouring I: Synchronisation and context dependency. Sci. Comp. Prog. 66(3), 205–225 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clarke, D., Proença, J., Lazovik, A., Arbab, F.: Deconstructing \(\mathcal{R}\mathsf{eo}\). Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 229(2), 43–58 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eclipse Coordination Tools,
  11. 11.
    HySAT Bounded Model Checker,
  12. 12.
    Jonsson, B.: A fully abstract trace model for dataflow networks. In: POPL, pp. 155–165 (1989)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kahn, G.: The semantics of a simple language for parallel programming. In: IFIP Congress, pp. 471–475 (1974)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kemper, S., Platzer, A.: SAT-based abstraction refinement for real-time systems. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 182, 107–122 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kemper, S.: SAT-based verification for timed component connectors. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 255, 103–118 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    The \(\textsc{Math{SAT}}\) 4 SMT solver,
  17. 17.
    Ren, S., Agha, G.: RTsynchronizer: Language support for real-time specifications in distributed systems. In: LCT-RTS, pp. 50–59 (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wegner, P.: Coordination as constrainted interaction (extended abstract). In: Hankin, C., Ciancarini, P. (eds.) COORDINATION 1996. LNCS, vol. 1061, pp. 28–33. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie Kemper
    • 1
  1. 1.CWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations