Metamodel Based Methodology for Dynamic Component Systems

  • Gabor Batori
  • Zoltan Theisz
  • Domonkos Asztalos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7349)

Abstract

MBE solutions, including their corresponding MDA frameworks, cover many parts of industrial application development processes. Although model based development methodologies are in abundance, fully integrated, domain specific methodologies still find their niche in specialized application scenarios. In this paper, such an alternative methodology will be presented that targets reconfigurable networked systems executing on top of interconnected heterogeneous hardware nodes. The methodology covers the whole development cycle; it even utilizes a configuration model for component reconfigurability, and also involves a first-order logic based structural modeling language, Alloy, in the analysis of component deployment and reconfiguration. The methodology is supported by both a metamodel based tooling environment within GME and a robust distributed middleware platform over Erlang/OTP. Due to its special applicability, the methodology is limited in scope and scaling, though core parts have been successfully showcased in a sensor network demonstrator of the IST project RUNES.

Keywords

Finite State Machine Component Application Alloy Analyzer Deployment Model Code Snippet 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arzén, K.-E., Bicchi, A., Dini, G., Hailes, S., Johansson, K.H., Lygeros, J., Tzes, A.: A component-based approach to the design of networked control systems. European Journal of Control (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Costa, P., Coulson, G., Mascolo, C., Picco, G.P., Zachariadis, S.: The RUNES Middleware: A reconfigurable component-based approach to networked embedded systems. In: Proc. of the 16th Annual IEEE International Symposium on Personal Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC 2005), Berlin, Germany (September 2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karsai, G., Sztipanovits, J., Ledeczi, A., Bapty, T.: Model-integrated development of embedded software. Proceedings of the IEEE 91, 145–164 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ledeczi, A., Maroti, M., Bakay, A., Karsai, G., Garrett, J., Thomason, C., Nordstrom, G., Sprinkle, J., Volgyesi, P.: The generic modeling environment. In: Proceedings of WISP 2001, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 255–277 (May 2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Batori, G., Theisz, Z., Asztalos, D.: Domain Specific Modeling Methodology for Reconfigurable Networked Systems. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 316–330. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. The MIT Press, London (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Batori, G., Theisz, Z., Asztalos, D.: Robust reconfigurable erlang component system. In: Erlang User Conference, Stockholm, Sweden (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Armstrong, J.: Making reliable distributed systems in the presence of software errors. SICS Dissertation Series 34 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mattsson, H., Nilsson, H., Wikström, C.: Mnesia – A Distributed Robust DBMS for Telecommunications Applications. In: Gupta, G. (ed.) PADL 1999. LNCS, vol. 1551, pp. 152–163. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prakash, A., Theisz, Z., Chaparadza, R.: Formal Methods for Modeling, Refining and Verifying Autonomic Components of Computer Networks. In: Gavrilova, M.L., Tan, C.J.K., Phan, C.-V. (eds.) Transactions on Computational Science XV. LNCS, vol. 7050, pp. 1–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Batori, G., Theisz, Z., Asztalos, D.: Configuration aware distributed system design in erlang. In: Erlang User Conference, Stockholm, Sweden (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jackson, D.: Alloy analyzer (2008), http://alloy.mit.edu/
  13. 13.
    Krüger, I.H., Mathew, R.: Component Synthesis from Service Specifications. In: Leue, S., Systä, T.J. (eds.) Scenarios. LNCS, vol. 3466, pp. 255–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taghdiri, M., Jackson, D.: A Lightweight Formal Analysis of a Multicast Key Management Scheme. In: König, H., Heiner, M., Wolisz, A. (eds.) FORTE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2767, pp. 240–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Warren, I., Sun, J., Krishnamohan, S., Weerasinghe, T.: An automated formal approach to managing dynamic reconfiguration. In: 21st IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2006), Tokyo, Japan, pp. 37–46 (September 2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Theisz, Z., Batori, G., Asztalos, D.: Formal logic based configuration modeling and verification for dynamic component systems. In: MOPAS 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walsh, D., Bordeleau, F., Selic, B.: A Domain Model for Dynamic System Reconfiguration. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 553–567. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aydal, E.G., Utting, M., Woodcock, J.: A comparison of state-based modelling tools for model validation. In: Tools 2008 (June 2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabor Batori
    • 1
  • Zoltan Theisz
    • 2
  • Domonkos Asztalos
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Engineering GroupEricsson Hungary Ltd.Hungary
  2. 2.evopro Informatics and Automation Ltd.Hungary

Personalised recommendations