Advertisement

Counterexample Guided Synthesis of Monitors for Realizability Enforcement

  • Matthias Güdemann
  • Gwen Salaün
  • Meriem Ouederni
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7561)

Abstract

Many of today’s software systems are built using distributed services, which evolve in different organizations. In order to facilitate their integration, it is necessary to provide a contract that the services participating in a composition should adhere to. A contract specifies interactions among a set of services from a global point of view. One important problem in a top-down development process is figuring out whether such a contract can be implemented by a set of services, obtained by projection and communicating via message passing. It was only recently shown, that this problem, known as realizability, is decidable if asynchronous communication (communication via FIFO buffers) is considered. It can be verified using the synchronizability property. If the system is not synchronizable, the system is not realizable either. In this paper, we propose a new, automatic approach, which enforces both synchronizability and realizability by generating local monitors through successive equivalence checks and refinement.

Keywords

Equivalence Check Parallel Composition Label Transition System Asynchronous Communication Service Orient Computing 
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.
    Alur, R., Etessami, K., Yannakakis, M.: Realizability and Verification of MSC Graphs. Theoretical Computer Science 331(1), 97–114 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrews, T.: et al. Business Process Execution Language for Web Services (WSBPEL). BEA Systems, IBM, Microsoft, SAP AG, and Siebel Systems (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basu, S., Bultan, T., Ouederni, M.: Deciding Choreography Realizability. In: Proc. of POPL 2012. ACM Press (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bultan, T., Fu, X.: Specification of Realizable Service Conversations using Collaboration Diagrams. Service Oriented Computing and Applications 2(1), 27–39 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carbone, M., Honda, K., Yoshida, N.: Structured Communication-Centred Programming for Web Services. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Champelovier, D., Clerc, X., Garavel, H., Guerte, Y., Powazny, V., Lang, F., Serwe, W., Smeding, G.: Reference Manual of the LOTOS NT to LOTOS Translator (Version 5.4). INRIA/VASY, 149 pages (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 154–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crouzen, P., Lang, F.: Smart Reduction. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Orejas, F. (eds.) FASE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6603, pp. 111–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Decker, G., Weske, M.: Local Enforceability in Interaction Petri Nets. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 305–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fu, X., Bultan, T., Su, J.: Conversation Protocols: A Formalism for Specification and Verification of Reactive Electronic Services. Theoretical Computer Science 328(1-2), 19–37 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fu, X., Bultan, T., Su, J.: Synchronizability of Conversations among Web Services. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(12), 1042–1055 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: CADP 2010: A Toolbox for the Construction and Analysis of Distributed Processes. In: Abdulla, P.A., Leino, K.R.M. (eds.) TACAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6605, pp. 372–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garavel, H., Mateescu, R.: XTL: A Meta-Language and Tool for Temporal Logic Model-Checking. In: Proc. STTT 1998 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hopcroft, J.E., Ullman, J.D.: Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation. Addison Wesley (1979)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lohmann, N., Wolf, K.: Realizability Is Controllability. In: Laneve, C., Su, J. (eds.) WS-FM 2009. LNCS, vol. 6194, pp. 110–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mateescu, R., Thivolle, D.: A Model Checking Language for Concurrent Value-Passing Systems. In: Cuellar, J., Sere, K. (eds.) FM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5014, pp. 148–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice-Hall (1989)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    OMG. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) – Version 2.0 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poizat, P., Salaün, G.: Checking the Realizability of BPMN 2.0 Choreographies. In: Proc. of SAC 2012. ACM Press (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Qiu, Z., Zhao, X., Cai, C., Yang, H.: Towards the Theoretical Foundation of Choreography. In: Proc. of WWW 2007. ACM Press (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Salaün, G., Bultan, T.: Realizability of Choreographies Using Process Algebra Encodings. In: Leuschel, M., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) IFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5423, pp. 167–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stengel, Z., Bultan, T.: Analyzing Singularity Channel Contracts. In: Proc. of ISSTA 2009. ACM (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Güdemann
    • 1
  • Gwen Salaün
    • 2
    • 1
  • Meriem Ouederni
    • 3
  1. 1.INRIA Rhône-AlpesGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.Grenoble INPFrance
  3. 3.LINAUniversity of NantesFrance

Personalised recommendations