Advertisement

User-Defined Atomicity Constraint: A More Flexible Transaction Model for Reliable Service Composition

  • Xiaoning Ding
  • Jun Wei
  • Tao Huang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4260)

Abstract

Transaction is the key mechanism to make service composition reliable. To ensure the relaxed atomicity of transactional composite service (TCS), existing research depends on the analysis to composition structure and exception handling mechanism. However, this approach can not handle various application-specific requirements, and causes lots of unnecessary failure recoveries or even aborts. In this paper, we propose a relaxed transaction model, including system mode, relaxed atomicity criterion, static checking algorithm and dynamic enforcement algorithm. Users can define different relaxed atomicity constraint for different TCS according to the specific application requirements, including accepted configurations and the preference order. The checking algorithm determines whether the constraint can be satisfied. The enforcement algorithm monitors the execution and performs transaction management works according to the constraint. Compared to existing work, our approach is flexible enough to handle complex application requirements and performs the transaction management works automatically. We apply the approach into web service composition language WS-BPEL and illustrate the above advantages through a concrete example.

Keywords

Service Composition Internal Transition External Transition Failure Recovery Candidate Service 
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.
    Yang, F.Q.: Thinking on the development of software engineering technology. Journal of Software 16(1), 1–7 (2005)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jian, L., Xianping, T., Xiaoxing, M., et al.: Research on Agent-Based Software Model for Internetware. Science in China, Series F-Information Sciences 35(12), 1233–1253 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang, A., Nodine, M., Bhargava, B.: Global Scheduling for Flexible Transactions in Heterogeneous Distributed Database Systems. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 13(3), 439–450 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gray, J., Reuter, A.: Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mohan, C.: Tutorial: Advanced Transaction Models Survey and Critique. In: ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, Minneapolis (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grefen, P., Vonk, J., Boertjes, E., Apers, P.: Semantics and Architecture of Global Transaction Support in Workflow Environments. In: Proceedings of the Fourth IFCIS International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, Edinburgh, Scotland, September 2-4, pp. 348–359 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pires, P.F.: WebTransact: A Framework For Specifying And Coordinating Reliable Web Services Compositions. Technical report ES-578/02, Coppe Federal University of Rio De Janeiro, Brazil (April 2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ren, Y., Wu, Q., Jia, Y., et al.: Transactional Business Coordination and Failure Recovery for Web Services Composition. In: GCC 2004, pp. 26–33 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    IBM, BEA Systems, Microsoft, SAP AG, Siebel Systems. Business Process Execution Language for Web Services, version 1.1 (2005), http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/specification/ws-bpel/
  10. 10.
    Microsoft, BEA and IBM. Web Services Transaction (WS-Transaction) (2002), http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-transpec/
  11. 11.
    Oasis Committee. Business Transaction Protocol (BTP), Version1.0 (2002), http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/business-transactions/
  12. 12.
    Bunting, D., et al.: Web Services Transaction Management (WS-TXM) Version 1.0. Arjuna, Fujitsu, IONA, Oracle, and Sun (July 28, 2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rusinkiewicz, M., Sheth, A.: Specification and execution of transactional workflows, Modern database systems: the object model, interoperability, and beyond. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ansari, M., Ness, L., Rusinkiewicz, M., Sheth, A.P.: Using Flexible Transactions to Support Multi-System Telecommunication Applications. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 65–76 (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Elmagarmid, A., Leu, Y., Litwin, W., Rusinkiewicz, M.: A multidatabase transaction model for InterBase. In: Proceedings of the sixteenth international conference on Very large databases, pp. 507–518 (1990)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bhiri, S., Perrin, O., Godart, C.: Ensuring required failure atomicity of composite Web services. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2005), pp. 138–147 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mikalsen, T., Tai, S., Rouvello, I.: Transactional Attitudes: Reliable Composition of Autonomous Web Services. In: International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN 2002) (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaoning Ding
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jun Wei
    • 1
  • Tao Huang
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of SoftwareChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.Graduate School of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations