Advertisement

A Component-Based Approach to Compose Transaction Standards

  • Romain Rouvoy
  • Patricia Serrano-Alvarado
  • Philippe Merle
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4089)

Abstract

This paper tackles the problem of composition of transaction services, which are governed by various transaction standards. Among others, we can cite the Object Transaction Service, Java Transaction Service, or Web Services Atomic Transaction. However, the Web Services Atomic Transaction standard encloses legacy transaction standards to support the Web Services application platform. This encapsulation introduces an additional complexity to the system and hides the specificities of legacy transaction standards. When composing heterogeneous legacy applications, the underlying transaction services are basically not composed transparently. This paper presents an approach to build an Adapted Transaction Service, named ATS, which supports several transaction standards concurrently. The objective of ATS is to facilitate the transaction standards composition. To introduce ATS we detail how the Object Transaction Service, Web Services Atomic Transaction, and Java Transaction Service standards can be composed. Besides, an ATS implementation is introduced using the GoTM framework. We show that this fine-grained component-based approach does not introduce an additional overhead to legacy applications and supports well scalability. Moreover, this approach can be extended to other standards.

Keywords

Transaction Service Adapter Component Participant Function Concurrent Transaction Atomic Transaction 
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.
    OMG: Object Transaction Service (OTS), 1.4 edn. (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheung, S.: Java Transaction Service (JTS), 1.0 edn. Sun Microsystems, Inc., San Antonio Road (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cabrera, L.F., Copeland, G., Feingold, M., et al.: Web Services Atomic Transaction (WS-AtomicTransaction), 1.0 edn. (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rouvoy, R., Merle, P.: GoTM: Vers un canevas transactionnel à base de composants. In: Langages, Modèles et Objets Conf. (LMO), L’Objet. Lille, France, Hermès Sciences, vol. 10, pp. 131–146 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruneton, E., Coupaye, T., Leclercq, M., et al.: 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
  6. 6.
    Cabrera, L.F., Copeland, G., Feingold, M., et al.: Web Services Business Activity Framework (WS-BusinessActivity), 1.0 edn. (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language (UML): Superstructure, 2.0 edn. (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Serrano-Alvarado, P., Rouvoy, R., Merle, P.: Self-Adaptive Component-Based Transaction Commit Management. In: 4th Work. on Adaptive and Reflective Middleware (ARM), Grenoble, France. AICPS, vol. 116, pp. 1–6. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    OMG.: Additional Structuring Mechanisms for the OTS, 1.1 edn. (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eskelin, P.: Component Interaction Patterns. In: 6th Annual Conf. on the Pattern Languages of Programs (PLoP), Urbana, IL, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang, N., Parameswaran, K., Schmidt, D., et al.: The Design and Performance of Meta-Programming Mechanisms for Object Request Broker Middleware. In: 6th USENIX Conf. on Object-Oriented Technologies and Systems (COOTS), San Antonio, Texas, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cabrera, L.F., Copeland, G., Feingold, M., et al.: Web Services Coordination (WS-Coordination), 1.0 edn. (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bruneton, E., Coupaye, T., Stefani, J.B.: Recursive and dynamic software composition with sharing. In: 7th Int. Work. on Component-Oriented Programming (WCOP), Malaga, Spain (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Medvidovic, N., Taylor, R.: A Classification and Comparison Framework for Software Architecture Description Languages. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26(1), 70–93 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seinturier, L., Pessemier, N., Coupaye, T.: AOKell: An Aspect-Oriented Implementation of the Fractal Specifications. In: Objectweb Fractal Workshop (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rouvoy, R., Merle, P.: Towards a Model Driven Approach to build Component-Based Adaptable Middleware. In: 3rd Work. on Adaptive and Reflective Middleware (ARM), Toronto, Ontario, Canada. AICPS, vol. 80, pp. 195–200. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mesnil, J.F.: Overview of JOTM: a Java Open Transaction Manager. In: 10th Biennal Work. on High Performance Transaction Systems (HPTS), Pacific Grove, California, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Demarey, C., Harbonnier, G., Rouvoy, R., et al.: Benchmarking the Round-Trip Latency of Various Java-Based Middleware Platforms. Studia Informatica Universalis Regular Issue 4(1), 7–24 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Little, M.: The Evolution of a Transaction Processing System. In: 11th Biennal Work. on High Performance Transaction Systems (HPTS), Pacific Grove, California, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hérault, C., Nemchenko, S., Lecomte, S.: A Component-Based Transactional Service, Including Advanced Transactional Models. In: Ramos, F.F., Larios Rosillo, V., Unger, H. (eds.) ISSADS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3563, pp. 545–556. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arntsen, A.B., Karlsen, R.: ReflecTS: a flexible transaction service framework. In: 4th Work. on Adaptive and Reflective Middleware (ARM), Grenoble, France. AICPS, vol. 116, pp. 1–6. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Romain Rouvoy
    • 1
  • Patricia Serrano-Alvarado
    • 2
  • Philippe Merle
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIA Futurs, Jacquard Project, LIFLUniversity of Lille 1Villeneuve d’AscqFrance
  2. 2.ATLAS-GDD Team, LINAUniversity of NantesNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations