Advertisement

Component QoS Contract Negotiation in Multiple Containers

  • Mesfin Mulugeta
  • Alexander Schill
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4276)

Abstract

The explicit consideration of component contracts aims at simplifying the development of component-based applications with non-functional requirements like QoS and security, but it is also a challenging task. QoS contract negotiation is used to select concrete QoS contracts between the collaborating components. This paper presents an algorithm for the QoS contract negotiation of components deployed in multiple component containers. Our algorithm addresses: possible resource constraints at each node and the network, the efficiency of the negotiation process, the selection of a heuristically optimized solution, and over-constrained cases. As a basis to our approach, we used the notion that the required and provided non-functional properties as well as resource demand are specified at the component level. To demonstrate the presented ideas, the interaction of a customer, video provider, and payment provider example scenario is analyzed.

Keywords

Constraint Satisfaction Problem Contract Negotiation Payment Provider Bottleneck Resource Component Contract 
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.
    Aagedal, J.Ø.: Quality of Service Support in Development of Distributed Systems. PhD thesis, University of Oslo (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beugnard, A., Jézéquel, J.-M., Plouzeau, N., Watkins, D.: Making components contract aware. IEEE Computer 32(7), 38–45 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouyssounouse, B., Sifakis, J. (eds.): Embedded Systems Design: The ARTIST Roadmap for Research and Development. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Freuder, E.C.: Partial constraint satisfaction. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 1989, Detroit, Michigan, USA, pp. 278–283 (1989)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frolund, S., Koistinen, J.: Quality-of-service specification in distributed object systems. IOP/BCS Distributed Systems Engineering Journal (December 1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Göbel, S., Pohl, C., Aigner, R., Pohlack, M., Röttger, S., Zschaler, S.: The COMQUAD component container architecture. In: Magee, J., Szyperski, C., Bosch, J. (eds.) 4th Working IEEE/IFIP Conf. on Software Architecture (WICSA), Oslo, Norway, pp. 315–318. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Göbel, S., Pohl, C., Röttger, S., Zschaler, S.: The COMQUAD Component Model—Enabling Dynamic Selection of Implementations by Weaving Non-functional Aspects. In: 3rd International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD 2004), Lancaster, UK, March 22–26 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khan, K.M., Han, J.: Composing security-aware software. IEEE Software, 34–41 (January/February 2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Object Management Group. UML profile for modeling quality of service and fault tolerance characteristics and mechanisms: Revised submission. OMG Document (May 2003), http://www.omg.org/docs/realtime/03-05-02.pdf
  10. 10.
    Ritter, T., Born, M., Unterschutz, T., Weis, T.: A QoS metamodel and its realization in a CORBA component infrastructure. In: Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Röttger, S., Zschaler, S.: CQML + : Enhancements to CQML. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) Proc. 1st Int’l Workshop on Quality of Service in Component-Based Software Engineering, Toulouse, France, Cépaduès-Éditions, pp. 43–56 (June 2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Russell, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Staehli, R., Eliassen, F., Amundsen, S.: Designing adaptive middleware for reuse. In: ARM 2004: Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on Adaptive and reflective middleware, New York, USA, pp. 189–194. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sun Microsystems. Java Media Framework API Guide (November 2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    COMQUAD Project – Components with Quantitative Properties and Adaptivity, http://comquad.org/
  16. 16.
    Ulbrich, A., Weis, T., Geihs, K., Becker, C.: DotQoS - A qoS extension for.NET remoting. In: Jeffay, K., Stoica, I., Wehrle, K. (eds.) IWQoS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2707, pp. 363–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vecellio, G.J., Thomas, W.M., Sanders, R.M.: Containers for predictable behavior of component-based software. In: The 5th ICSE Workshop on Component-Based Software Engineering, Orlando, Florida, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang, N., Gill, C.D., Schmidt, D.C., Gokhale, A., Natarajan, B., Rodrigues, C., Loyall, J.P., Schantz, R.E.: Total quality of service provisioning in middleware and applications. Microprocessors and Microsystems 27(2), 45–54 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weis, T., Plouzeau, N., Geihs, K., Sassen, A.-M., Jézéquel, J.-M.: QCCS: Quality controlled component-based software development. Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yokoo, M., Durfee, E.H., Ishida, T., Kuwabara, K.: The distributed constraint satisfaction problem: Formalization and algorithms. Knowledge and Data Engineering 10(5), 673–685 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mesfin Mulugeta
    • 1
  • Alexander Schill
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for System Architecture, Dresden University of TechnologyGermany

Personalised recommendations