Dimensions of Composition Models for Supporting Software Evolution

  • In-Gyu Kim
  • Tegegne Marew
  • Doo-Hwan Bae
  • Jang-Eui Hong
  • Sang-Yoon Min
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4089)


Software systems with constrained and dynamic environments need to adapt to local and diverse computing environments by providing highly customized services at run-time. In order to address such dynamic changes effectively, composition models addressing complicated composition issues and supporting advanced composition features are required. In order to analyze and identify the required features of composition models supporting dynamic changes, we propose the dimensions of composition models by survey and analysis of existing work. Based on the dimensions, it is possible to provide a road map to improve capability of a composition model for a specific domain such as a dynamic mobile agent domain.


Mobile Agent Context Relation Require Feature Composition Model Composition Semantic 
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.
    Aalst, W.: Don’t go with the flow: web services composition standards exposed. IEEE Intelligent Systems 18(1), 72–76 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abadi, M., Cardelli, L.: A Theory of Object. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abmann, U.: Invasive Software Composition. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Batory, D., Geraci, B.: Composition Validation and Subjectivity in GenVoca Generators. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 23(2), 67–82 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ben-Shaul, I., Holder, O., Lavva, B.: Dynamic Adaptation and Deployment of Distributed Components in Hadas. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27(9), 769–787 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bosch, J.: Superimposition: A Component Adaptation Technique. Information and Software Technology 41(5), 257–273 (1999)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buchi, M., Weck, W.: Generic Wrappers. In: Bertino, E. (ed.) ECOOP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1850, pp. 201–225. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheng, S., Garlan, D., Schmerl, B., Sousa, J., Spitznagel, B., Steenkiste, P., Hu, N.: Software Architecture-base Adaptation for Pervasive Systems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Architecture of Computing Systems: Trends in Network and Pervasive Computing, pp. 67–82Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeMichiel, L., Yalcinalp, L., Krishnan, S.: Enterprise JavaBeansTM Specification, Version 2.0. Technical report. Sun Microsystems (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dominick, L., Ostermann, K.: Supporting Extension of Components with new Paradigms. In: Workshop on Advanced Separation of Concerns at OOPSLA (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dowling, J., Cahill, V.: The K-Component Architecture Meta-Model for Self-Adaptive Software. In: Goemans, M.X., Jansen, K., Rolim, J.D.P., Trevisan, L. (eds.) RANDOM 2001 and APPROX 2001. LNCS, vol. 2129, pp. 81–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Group, O.M.: CORBA Components, v3.0 full specification. Technical report, OMG (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heineman, G., Ohlenbusch, H.: An Evaluation of Component Adaptation Techniques. Technical report, Computer Science Department, Worcester Polytechnic Institute (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Helm, R., Holland, I., Gangopadhyay, D.: Contracts: Specifying Behavioral Compositions in Object-Oriented Systems. In: Proceedings of the OOPSLA/ECOOP Conference, pp. 169–180 (1990)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kiczales, G., Lamping, J., Menhdhekar, A., Maeda, C., Lopes, C., Loingtier, J., Irwin, J.: Aspect-Oriented Programming. In: Aksit, M., Matsuoka, S. (eds.) ECOOP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1241, pp. 220–242. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim, I., Bae, D.: A Dynamic Composition Model for Addressing Constrained Environments. In: OOPSLA Workshop on Reuse in Constrained Environments (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim, I., Bae, D.: Dimensions of Composition Model for Supporting Software System Evolution. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, KAIST (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim, I., Hong, J., Bae, D., Han, I., Yoon, C.: Scalable Mobile Agents Supporting Dynamic Composition of Functionality. In: Wagner, T.A., Rana, O.F. (eds.) AA-WS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1887, pp. 199–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kniesel, G.: Type-Safe Delegation for Run-Time Component Adaptation. In: Guerraoui, R. (ed.) ECOOP 1999. LNCS, vol. 1628, pp. 351–366. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maes, P.: Concepts and Experiments in Computation Reflection. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA, pp. 147–155 (1987)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ostermann, K., Mezini, M.: Object-Oriented Composition Untangled. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA, pp. 283–299 (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seiter, L., Palsberg, J., Lieberherr, K.: Evolution of Object Behavior Using Context Relations. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(1), 79–92 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Svahnberg, M., Gurp, J., Bosch, J.: A taxonomy of variability realization techniques. Software Practice and Experience 35(8), 705–754 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Szyperski, C.: Component Software - Beyond Object-Oriented Programming. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Taivalsaari, A.: On the Notion of Inheritance. ACM Computing Surveys 28(3), 438–479 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tarr, P., Ossher, H., Harrison, W., Jr., S.: N Degrees of Separation: Multi-Dimensional Separation of Concerns. In: Proceedings of ICSE, pp. 107–119 (1999)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Truyen, E., Vanhaute, B., Joosen, W., Verbaeten, P., Jorgensen, B.: Dynamic and Selective Combination of Extensions in Component-Based Applications. In: Proceedings of ICSE, pp. 233–242 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • In-Gyu Kim
    • 1
  • Tegegne Marew
    • 2
  • Doo-Hwan Bae
    • 2
  • Jang-Eui Hong
    • 3
  • Sang-Yoon Min
    • 4
  1. 1.Telecommunication R & D Center, Telecommunication, Network Business, Samsung Electronics, Co. Ltd.SuwonKorea
  2. 2.Dept. of Electrical Engineering & Computer ScienceKAISTDaejonKorea
  3. 3.CBNUSchool of Electrical & Computer EngineeringCheongjuKorea
  4. 4.KAIST Venture IncubatorSOLUTIONLINKDaejonKorea

Personalised recommendations