Advertisement

Partial Connector Colouring

  • Dave Clarke
  • José Proença
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7274)

Abstract

Connector colouring provided an intuitive semantics of Reo connectors which lead to effective implementation techniques, first based on computing colouring tables directly, and later on encodings of colouring into constraints. One weakness of the framework is that it operates globally, giving a colouring to all primitives of the connector in lock-step, including those not involved in the interaction. This global approach limits both scalability and the available concurrency. This paper addresses these problems by introducing partiality into the connector colouring model. Partial colourings allow parts of a connector to operate independently and in isolation, increasing scalability and concurrency.

References

  1. 1.
    Arbab, F.: Reo: a channel-based coordination model for component composition. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 14(3), 329–366 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arbab, F.: Composition of interacting computations. In: Goldin, D., Smolka, S., Wegner, P. (eds.) Interactive Computation: The New Paradigm, pp. 277–321. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arbab, F., Bruni, R., Clarke, D., Lanese, I., Montanari, U.: Tiles for Reo. In: Corradini, A., Montanari, U. (eds.) WADT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5486, pp. 37–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arbab, F., Koehler, C., Maraikar, Z., Moon, Y., Proença, J.: Modeling, testing and executing Reo connectors with the Eclipse Coordination Tools. In: International Workshop on Formal Aspects of Component Software (FACS), Malaga. ENTCS (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bliudze, S., Sifakis, J.: Synthesizing Glue Operators from Glue Constraints for the Construction of Component-Based Systems. In: Apel, S., Jackson, E. (eds.) SC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6708, pp. 51–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonsangue, M.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.
    Bruni, R., Lanese, I., Montanari, U.: A basic algebra of stateless connectors. Theor. Comput. Sci. 366(1-2), 98–120 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke, D., Costa, D., Arbab, F.: Connector colouring I: Synchronisation and context dependency. Science of Computer Programming 66(3), 205–225 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clarke, D., Proença, J., Lazovik, A., Arbab, F.: Channel-based coordination via constraint satisfaction. Sci. Comput. Program. 76(8), 681–710 (2011)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Costa, D.: Formal Models for Component Connectors. PhD thesis, Vrij Universiteit Amsterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jongmans, S.-S.T.Q., Krause, C., Arbab, F.: Encoding Context-Sensitivity in Reo into Non-Context-Sensitive Semantic Models. In: De Meuter, W., Roman, G.-C. (eds.) COORDINATION 2011. LNCS, vol. 6721, pp. 31–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klüppelholz, S., Baier, C.: Symbolic model checking for channel-based component connectors. ENTCS 175(2), 19–37 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lazovik, A., Aiello, M., Gennari, R.: Choreographies: Using constraints to satisfy service requests. In: Proc. of the Advanced International Conference on Telecommunications and International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services, p. 150. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Minsky, N.H., Ungureanu, V.: Law-governed interaction: a coordination and control mechanism for heterogeneous distributed systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 9(3), 273–305 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Montanari, U., Rossi, F.: Modeling process coordination via tiles, graphs, and constraints. In: 3rd Biennial World Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology, vol. 4, pp. 1–8 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Proença, J.: Synchronous coordination of distributed components. PhD thesis, LIACS, Leiden University (May 2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sobociński, P.: Representations of Petri Net Interactions. In: Gastin, P., Laroussinie, F. (eds.) CONCUR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6269, pp. 554–568. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wegner, P.: Coordination as Constrained Interaction (Extended Abstract). In: Hankin, C., Ciancarini, P. (eds.) COORDINATION 1996. LNCS, vol. 1061, pp. 28–33. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dave Clarke
    • 1
  • José Proença
    • 1
  1. 1.IBBT-DistriNet, Department of Computer ScienceK.U. LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations