Advertisement

Dynamic Reconfiguration and Access to Services in Hierarchical Component Models

  • Petr Hnětynka
  • František Plášil
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4063)

Abstract

This paper addresses the unavoidable problem of dynamic reconfig-uration in component-based system with a hierarchical component model. The presented solution is based on (1) allowing several well defined patterns of dynamic reconfiguration and on (2) introducing a utility interface concept, which allows using a service provided under the SOA paradigm from a component-based system. The paper is based on our experience with non-trivial case studies written for component-based systems SOFA and Fractal.

Keywords

Component Model Software Architecture Composite Component Shared Component Dynamic Reconfiguration 
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.
    Aldrich, J., Chambers, C., Notkin, D.: ArchJava: Connecting Software Architecture to Implementation. In: Proceedings of ICSE 2002, Orlando, USA (May 2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen, R.: A Formal Approach to Software Architecture, PhD thesis, CMU (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baumeister, H., Hacklinger, F., Hennicker, R., Knapp, A., Wirsing, M.: A Component Model for Architectural Programming. In: Proceedings of FACS 2005, Macao (October 2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruneton, E., Coupaye, T., Leclercq, M., Quema, V., Stefani, J.B.: An Open Component Model and Its Support in Java. In: Crnković, I., Stafford, J.A., Schmidt, H.W., Wallnau, K. (eds.) CBSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3054, pp. 7–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chappell, D.A.: Enterprise Service Bus. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Enterprise Java Beans specification, version 2.1, Sun Microsystems (November 2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hnětynka, P., Píše, M.: Hand-written vs. MOF-based Metadata Repositories: The SOFA Experience. In: Proceedings of ECBS 2004, Brno, Czech Republic. IEEE CS, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hnětynka, P., Plášil, F., Bureš, T., Mencl, V., Kapová, L.: SOFA 2.0 metamodel, Tech. Rep. 11/2005, Dept. of SW Engineering, Charles University, Prague (December 2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Inverardi, P., Wolf, A.L.: Formal Specification and Analysis of Software Architectures Using the Chemical Abstract Machine Model. IEEE Trans. on Soft. Eng. 21(4) (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iribarne, L.: Web Components: A Comparison between Web Services and Software Components. Colombian Journal of Computation 5(1) (June 2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Lau, K.-K., Wang, Z.: A Taxonomy of Software Component Models. In: Proceedings of EUROMICRO-SEAA 2005, Porto, Portugal (September 2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Dynamic Structure in Software Architectures. In: Proceedings of FSE’4, San Francisco, USA (October 1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Medvidovic, N.: ADLs and dynamic architecture changes. In: Joint Proceedings SIGSOFT 1996 Workshops. ACM Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    OMG: CORBA Components, v 3.0, OMG document formal/02-06-65 (June 2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    OMG: Deployment and Configuration of Component-based Distributed Applications Specification, OMG document ptc/05-01-07 (January 2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Plášil, F., Bálek, D., Janeček, R.: SOFA/DCUP: Architecture for Component Trading and Dynamic Updating. In: Proceedings of ICCDS 1998, Annapolis, USA. IEEE CS, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Szyperski, C.: Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taylor, R.N., et al.: A Component- and Message-Based Architectural Style for GUI Software. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 22(6) (June 1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Wells, G.: Coordination Languages: Back to the Future with Linda. In: Proceedings of WCAT 2005, Glasgow, UK (July 2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wermelingera, M., Fiadeiro, J.L.: A graph transformation approach to software architecture reconfiguration. Science of Computer Programming 44(2) (August 2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petr Hnětynka
    • 1
  • František Plášil
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Software Engineering, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics‘Charles UniversityPrague 1Czech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of Computer ScienceAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPrague 8Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations