A Model Transformation Approach for the Early Performance and Reliability Analysis of Component-Based Systems

  • Vincenzo Grassi
  • Raffaela Mirandola
  • Antonino Sabetta
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4063)


The adoption of a “high level” perspective in the design of a component-based application, without considering the specific features of some underlying supporting platform, has the advantage of focusingon the relevant architectural aspects and reasoning about them in a platform independent way, omitting unnecessary details that could even not be known at the earliest development stages.On the other hand, many of the details that are typically neglected in this high-level perspective must necessarily be taken into account to obtain a meaningful evaluation of different architectural choices in terms of extra-functional quality attributes, like performance or reliability. Toward the reconciliation of these two contrasting needs, we propose a model-based approach whose goal is to support the derivation of sufficiently detailed prediction models from high level models of component-based systems, focusing on the prediction of performance and reliability. We exploit for this purpose a refinement mechanism based on the use of model transformation techniques.


Model Transformation Architectural Model Object Management Group Intermediate Language Meta Object Facility 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Balsamo, S., di Marco, A., Inverardi, P., Simeoni, M.: Model-based performance prediction in software development: a survey. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 30(5), 295–310 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R.: Software Architectures in Practice. Addison-Wesley, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bezivin, J., Breton, E., Dupé, G., Valduriez, P.: The ATL transformation-based model management framework. Res. Report no. 03.08, IRIN, Univ. de Nantes (September 2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cortellessa, V., Singh, H., Cukic, B., Gunel, E., Bharadwaj, V.: Early reliability assessment of UML based software models. In: Proc. 3rd Int.Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2002), Rome (Italy), July 24-26 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cortellessa, V., Pompei, A.: Towards a UML profile for QoS: a contribution in the reliability domain. In: Proc. 4th Int. Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2004), pp. 197–206 (January 2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gomaa, H., Menascé, D.A.: Performance engineering of component-based distributed software systems. In: Dumke, R.R., Rautenstrauch, C., Schmietendorf, A., Scholz, A. (eds.) WOSP 2000 and GWPESD 2000. LNCS, vol. 2047. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grassi, V., Mirandola, R., Sabetta, A.: From Design to Analysis Models: a Kernel Language for Performance and Reliability Analysis of Component-based Systems. In: Proc. WOSP 2005: 5th ACM International Workshop on Software and Performance, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, July 11-14, pp. 25–36 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gu, G., Petriu, D.C.: From UML to LQN by XML Algebra-Based Graph Transformations. In: Proc. Fifth International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2005), Palma, Illes Balears, Spain, July 11-15, pp. 99–110 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hissam, S.A., et al.: Packaging Predictable Assembly. In: Bishop, J.M. (ed.) CD 2002. LNCS, vol. 2370, pp. 108–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lazowska, E.D., et al.: Quantitative System Performance: Computer System Analysis using Queueing Network Models, on line at:
  11. 11.
    Leangsuksun, C., Song, H., Shen, L.: Reliability Modeling Using UML. In: Proc. 2003 Int. Conf. on Software Engineering Research and Practice, June 23-26, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    MDA Guide Version 1.0.1, OMG Document omg/03-06-01, on line at:
  13. 13.
    Medvidovic, N., Taylor, R.N.: A classification and comparison framework for software architecture description languages. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 26(1), 70–93 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Core Specification, OMG Adopted Specification ptc/03-10-04, on line at:
  15. 15.
    Mehta, N.R., Medvidovic, N., Phadke, S.: Toward a taxonomy of software connectors. In: Proc. 22nd Int. Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2000) (May 2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    MOF 2.0 Query/Views/Transformations RFP, OMG Document ad/2002-04-10, on line at:
  17. 17.
    OldevikL, J.: UMT UML model transformation tool, online at:
  18. 18.
    UML 2.0 OCL Specification, OMG Final Adopted Specification online at:
  19. 19.
    OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services, White Paper, The OWL Services Coalition (November 2003), online at:
  20. 20.
    Reussner, R.H., Schmidt, H.W., Poernomo, I.: Reliability Prediction for Component-Based Software Architectures. Journal of Systems and Software 66(3), 241–252 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Selic, B.: The Pragmatics of Model-Driven Development. IEEE Software 20(5), 19–25 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Solberg, A., Husa, K.E., Aagedal, J., Abrahamsen, E.: QoS-Aware MDA. In: Proc. Workshop Model-Driven Architecture in the Specification, Implementation and Validation of Object-Oriented Embedded Systems (SIVOES-MDA 2003) (in conjunction with UML 2003) (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    UML Profile for Modeling Quality of Service and Fault Tolerance Characteristics and Mechanisms, OMG Adopted Specification ptc/04-09-012,
  24. 24.
    UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, and Time Specification, OMG Adopted Specification ptc/02-03-02, online at:
  25. 25.
    UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification, OMG Adopted Specification ptc/03-08-02, online at:
  26. 26.
    Varrò, D., Varrò, G., Pataricza, A.: Designing the automatic transformation of visual languages. Science of Computer Programming 44(2), 205–227 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Verdikt, T., Dhoedt, B., Gielen, F., Demesteer, P.: Automatic Inclusion of Middleware Performance Attributes into Architectural UML Software Models. IEEE Trans. of Software Engineering 31(8), 695–711 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Woodside, M., et al.: Performance by Unified Model Analysis (PUMA). In: Proc. WOSP 2005: 5th ACM International Workshop on Software and Performance, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, July 11-14, pp. 1–12 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincenzo Grassi
    • 1
  • Raffaela Mirandola
    • 2
  • Antonino Sabetta
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica, Sistemi e ProduzioneUniversità di Roma “Tor Vergata”Italy
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Elettronica e InformazionePolitecnico di MilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations