A Modal Interface Theory with Data Constraints

  • Sebastian S. Bauer
  • Rolf Hennicker
  • Michel Bidoit
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6527)


For the design of component-based software, the behavioral specification of component interfaces is crucial. We propose an extension of the theory of modal I/O-transition systems by Larsen et al. to cope with both control flow and data states of reactive components at the same time. In our framework, transitions model incoming or outgoing operation calls which are constrained by pre- and postconditions expressing the mutual assumptions and guarantees of the receiver and the sender of a message. We define a new interface theory by adapting synchronous composition, modal refinement and modal compatibility to the case of modal I/O-transition systems with data constraints. We show that in this formalism modal compatibility is preserved by refinement and modal refinement is preserved by composition which are basic requirements for any interface theory.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Barros, T., Ameur-Boulifa, R., Cansado, A., Henrio, L., Madelaine, E.: Behavioural models for distributed Fractal components. Annales des Télécommunications 64(1-2), 25–43 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer, S.S., Hennicker, R., Bidoit, M.: A modal interface theory with data constraints. Technical Report 1005, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauer, S.S., Hennicker, R., Janisch, S.: Behaviour protocols for interacting stateful components. Electr. Notes Th. Comp. Sci. 263, 47–66 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bauer, S.S., Mayer, P., Schroeder, A., Hennicker, R.: On weak modal compatibility, refinement, and the MIO Workbench. In: Esparza, J., Majumdar, R. (eds.) TACAS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6015, pp. 175–189. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bidoit, M., Hennicker, R., Knapp, A., Baumeister, H.: Glass-box and black-box views on object-oriented specifications. In: Proc. SEFM 2004, Beijing, China, pp. 208–217. IEEE Comp. Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A.: Interface Theories for Component-Based Design. In: Henzinger, T.A., Kirsch, C.M. (eds.) EMSOFT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2211, pp. 148–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fernandes, F., Royer, J.-C.: The STSLib project: Towards a formal component model based on STS. Electr. Notes Th. Comp. Sci. 215, 131–149 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischer, C.: CSP-OZ: a combination of Object-Z and CSP. In: Proc. FMOODS, Canterbury, UK, pp. 423–438. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larsen, K.G., Nyman, U., Wasowski, A.: Modal I/O Automata for Interface and Product Line Theories. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 64–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larsen, K.G., Nyman, U., Wasowski, A.: On Modal Refinement and Consistency. In: Caires, L., Li, L. (eds.) CONCUR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4703, pp. 105–119. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Larsen, K.G., Thomsen, B.: A Modal Process Logic. In: 3rd Annual Symp. Logic in Computer Science, LICS 1988, pp. 203–210. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1988)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mouelhi, S., Chouali, S., Mountassir, H.: Refinement of interface automata strengthened by action semantics. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 253(1), 111–126 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian S. Bauer
    • 1
  • Rolf Hennicker
    • 1
  • Michel Bidoit
    • 2
  1. 1.Ludwig-Maximilians-UniversitätMünchenGermany
  2. 2.Laboratoire Spécification et Vérification, CNRS & ENS de CachanFrance

Personalised recommendations