Distributed Component System Based on Architecture Description: The SOFA Experience

  • Tomáš Kalibera
  • Petr Tůma
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2519)


In this paper, the authors share their experience gathered during the design and implementation of a runtime environment for the SOFA component system. The authors focus on the issues of mapping the SOFA component denition language into the C++ language and the integration of a CORBA middleware into the SOFA component system, aimingto support transparently distributed applications in a real-life environment. The experience highlights general problems related to the type system of architecture description languages and middleware implementations, the mappingof the type system into the implementation language, and the support for dynamic changes of the application architecture.


Architecture description languages ADL component definition languages CDL middleware CORBA language mapping dynamic architectures 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Allen R. J.: A Formal Approach to Software Architecture, Doctoral thesis at Carnegie Mellon University, USA, 1997Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen R. J., Douence R., Garlan D.: Specifyingand AnalyzingDynamic Software Architectures, Proceedings of FASE 1998, Portugal, 1998Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bálek D.: Connectors in Software Architectures, Doctoral thesis at Charles University, Czech Republic,, 2002
  4. 4.
    Bálek D., Plášil F.: Software Connectors and Their Role in Component Deployment, Proceedings of DAIS 2001, Poland, 2001Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellissard L., Ben Atallah S., Boyer F., Riveill M.: Distributed Application Configuration, Proceedings of ICDCS 1996, Hong Kong, 1996Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blair G., Blair L., Issarny V., Tùma P., Zarras A.: The Role of Software Architecture in ConstrainingAdaptation in Component-based Middleware Platforms, Proceedings of Middleware 2000, USA, 2000Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dashofy E. M., van der Hoek A., Taylor R. N.: An Infrastructure for the Rapid Development of XML-based Architecture Description Languages, Proceedings of ICSE 2002, USA, 2002Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garlan D., Kompanek A.: Reconcilingthe Needs of Architectural Description with Object-Modeling Notations, Proceedings of UML 2000, United Kingdom, 2000Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garlan D., Monroe R., Wile D.: ACME: An Architecture Description Interchange Language, Proceedings of CASCON 1997, Canada, 1997Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hnětynka P., Mencl V.: Managing Evolution of Component Specifications using a Federation of Repositories, Technical report 2001/2, Department of Software Engineering, Charles University, Czech Republic, 2001Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    International Organization for Standardization: C++ Programming Language, ISO/IEC standard 14882, 1998Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luckham D. C., Kenney J. J., Augustin L. M., Vera J., Bryan D., Mann W.: Specification and Analysis of System Architecture UsingRapide, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21(4), 1995Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Magee J., Tseng A., Kramer J.: Composing Distributed Objects in CORBA, Proceedings of ISADS 1997, Germany, 1997Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Medvidovic N., Taylor R. N., Whitehead E. J.: Formal Modelingof Software Architectures at Multiple Levels of Abstraction, Proceedings of CSS 1996, USA, 1996Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Object Management Group: C++ Language Mapping Specication, formal/99-07-41,, 1999
  16. 17.
    Object Management Group: Java Language Mapping Specication, formal/99-07-53,, 1999
  17. 18.
    Object Management Group: Common Object Request Broker: Architecture and Specication, CORBA 2.6.1, formal/02-05-08,, 2002
  18. 19.
    Object Management Group: CORBA Component Model Specication, ptc/01-11-03,, 2001
  19. 20.
    Open Group: X Windows System,, 2002
  20. 21.
    Plášil F., Bálek D., Janeèek R.: SOFA/DCUP: Architecture for Component Trading and Dynamic Updating, Proceedings of ICCDS 1998, USA, 1998Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Plášil F., Višňovský S.: Behavior Protocols for Software Components, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(9), 2002Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    Shaw M., DeLine R., Klein D. V., Ross T. L., Young D. M., Zelesnik G.: Abstractions for Software Architecture and Tools to Support Them, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21(4), 1995Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    Sun Microsystems: Enterprise JavaBeans Specication 2.0,, 2002
  24. 25.
    Tůma P., Buble A.: Open CORBA Benchmarking, Proceedings of SPECTS 2001, USA, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomáš Kalibera
    • 1
  • Petr Tůma
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Software EngineeringCharles University Faculty of Mathematics and PhysicsPrague 1Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations