Modal Interface Theories for Communication-Safe Component Assemblies
Abstract
We propose an extension of the abstract rules for independent implementability of reactive components proposed in interface theories to take into account interface assemblies. As a concrete instantiation we extend existing interface theories for modal I/O-transition systems to support assemblies, (greybox) assembly refinement and assembly encapsulation. We introduce a new notion of communication-safety for N-ary assemblies which overcomes problems with previous definitions of interface compatibility. We show that communication-safety can be checked incrementally. We also show that communication-safety is preserved by assembly refinement, that blackbox refinement of component interfaces is compositional w.r.t. greybox refinement of assemblies and, conversely, that assembly encapsulation maps greybox to blackbox refinement. The methodology of our approach is illustrated by a small case study.
Keywords
Credit Card Communication Partner Proof Obligation Simulation Relation Interface CompositionPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Barros, T., Ameur-Boulifa, R., Cansado, A., Henrio, L., Madelaine, E.: Behavioural models for distributed Fractal components. Ann. Télécom. 64(1-2), 25–43 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.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
- 3.Bernardo, M., Ciancarini, P., Donatiello, L.: Architecting families of software systems with process algebras. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11(4), 386–426 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Brand, D., Zafiropulo, P.: On communicating finite-state machines. J. ACM 30(2), 323–342 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 5.Cerná, I., Vareková, P., Zimmerova, B.: Component substitutability via equivalencies of component-interaction automata. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 182, 39–55 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A.: Interface automata. In: Proc. 9th ACM SIGSOFT Ann. Symp. Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE 2001), pp. 109–120 (2001)Google Scholar
- 7.de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A.: Interface-based design. In: Broy, M., Grünbauer, J., Harel, D., Hoare, C.A.R. (eds.) Engineering Theories of Software-intensive Systems. NATO Science Series: Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry, vol. 195, pp. 83–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.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
- 9.Hüttel, H., Larsen, K.G.: The use of static constructs in a modal process logic. In: Meyer, A.R., Taitslin, M.A. (eds.) Logic at Botik. LNCS, vol. 363, pp. 163–180. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Larsen, K.G., Nyman, U., Wąsowski, 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
- 11.Larsen, K.G., Thomsen, B.: A modal process logic. In: Proc. 3rd Ann. Symp. Logic in Computer Science (LICS 1988), pp. 203–210. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1988)Google Scholar
- 12.Plášil, F., Višňovský, S.: Behavior protocols for software components. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 28(11), 1056–1076 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Rausch, A., Reussner, R., Mirandola, R., Plášil, F. (eds.): The Common Component Modeling Example. LNCS, vol. 5153. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar