Generic Component Lookup
The possibilities currently offered to conduct business at an electronic level are immense. Service providers offer access to their attendances through components placed on the Internet; such components can be combined to build applications, which can themselves be used as components by further business units. The final leg of the way to this paradigm has been paved by the advent of service-oriented architectures in general, and Web Services in particular.
With protocols existing for any parties to communicate, the most critical ingredient to the success of a business idea remains the task of choosing one’s business partners. At a technical level, this translates to the issue of identifying which components represent the most adequate services to build a final application.
While each middleware technology and system proposed in the past has been described with its scheme for “looking up” components, this paper chooses the more difficult approach of trying to distill the fundamentals of component lookup. We propose a generic model of component lookup — applicable to settings as diverse as tagged sets, classic white pages, or even method dispatch — and its implementation. We illustrate our model through various examples of existing lookup schemes. It turns out that in our generic context the common distinction between name-based and type-based lookup becomes rather artificial.
KeywordsRegular Expression Overlay Network Service Group Matching Module Domain Name System
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Group, O.M.: The Common Object Request Broker Architecture: Core Specification, Version 3.0.3. OMG (2004)Google Scholar
- 2.Blair, G., Stefani, J.B.: Open Distributed Processing and Multimedia. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1997)Google Scholar
- 3.ShaikhAli, A., Rana, O., Al-Ali, R., Walker, D.: Uddie: An extended registry for web services. In: SAINT-W 2003: Proceedings of the 2003 Symposium on Applications and the Internet Workshops (SAINT 2003 Workshops), p. 85 (2003)Google Scholar
- 6.Lee, K., LaMarca, A., Chambers, C.: Hydroj: object-oriented pattern matching for evolvable distributed systems. In: OOPSLA 2003: Proceedings of the 18th annual ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programing, Systems, Languages, and Applications, pp. 205–223 (2003)Google Scholar
- 7.Oriol, M., Di Marzo Serugendo, G.: A disconnected service architecture for unanticipated run-time evolution of code. IEE Proceedings-Software, Special Issue on Unanticipated Software Evolution 151(2), 95–107 (2004)Google Scholar
- 8.Eugster, P., Baehni, S.: Abstracting Remote Object Interaction in a Peer-to-Peer Environment. Concurrency & Computation: Practice and Experience 17(7-8) (2005)Google Scholar
- 10.Carriero, N., Gelernter, D.: Applications experience with Linda. In: ACM Sympos. on Parallel Programming (1985)Google Scholar
- 12.Bryce, C., Oriol, M., Vitek, J.: A Coordination Model for Agents Based on Secure Spaces. In: 3rd Int. Conf. on Coordination Models and Languages, pp. 4–20 (1999)Google Scholar
- 14.Bay, T., Eugster, P., Oriol, M.: A First Order Model of Component Lookup. Technical report, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETHZ) (2006)Google Scholar
- 15.Oaks, S., Gong, L.: Jxta in a Nutshell. O’Reilly & Associates, Inc., Sebastopol (2002)Google Scholar
- 16.Eugster, P., Guerraoui, R.: Probabilistic Multicast. In: 3rd IEEE International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN 2002), pp. 313–323 (2002)Google Scholar