Advertisement

Designing configuration management facilities for dynamically bound systems

  • Bradley R. Schmerl
  • Chris D. Marlin
Versioning Models
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1005)

Abstract

Dynamically bound systems are those software systems which are able to incorporate executable components into themselves during execution. Such systems are clearly very flexible; however, they suffer from problems associated with this flexibility. These problems, which are similar to some of the problems addressed by configuration management, include how to locate and select components, how to manage change to components, how to verify the consistency of configurations of the systems and how to determine the actual system configuration. This paper describes some of the systems which support dynamic binding and discusses some of their associated problems. An approach to the design of configuration management facilities for dynamically bound systems is then outlined. This approach involves the detailed modelling of dynamic binding in a range of systems supporting this notion and the integration of this model with the relevant aspects of a model of configuration management developed by Wiebe. Finally, the paper foreshadows some ways in which the previously mentioned problems with dynamically bound systems can be addressed.

Keywords

Selection Rule Figuration Management Configuration Management Version Family Dynamic Binding 
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]
    D. Wiebe. Generic Software Configuration Management: Theory and Design. PhD thesis, Technical report 90-07-03. Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    O. Frieder and M. E. Segal. On dynamically updating a computer program: From concept to prototype. Journal of Systems Software, 14:111–28, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    W. W. Ho and R. A. Olsson. An approach to genuine dynamic linking. Software — Practice and Experience, 21(4):375–90, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. P. Reiss. Field: A friendly integrated environment for learning and development. 1994.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. E. Gantenbein. Dynamic Binding of Separately Compiled Objects Under Program Control. PhD thesis, Technical report 86-08. Department of Computer Science, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R. E. Gantenbein and D. W. Jones. The design and implementation of a dynamic binding feature for a high-level language. The Journal of Systems and Software, 8:259273, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. Morrison, A. L. Brown, R. C. H. Connor, Q. I. Cutts, A. Dearle, G. N. C. Kirby, and D. S. Munro. The Napier88 Reference Manual (Release 2.0). Technical report, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Scotland, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    J. Kramer and J. Magee. Dynamic configuration for distributed systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-11(4):424–35, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. E. Segal and O. Frieder. On-the-fly program modification: Systems for dynamic updating. IEEE Software, 10(2):53–65, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. N. Taylor, N. Medvidovic, K. M. Anderson, E. J. Whitehead Jr, and J. E. Robbins. A component-and message-based architectural style for GUI software. In 17th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 295–304, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Chiron-2-a component-and message-based architectural style for GUI software, 1995. Arcadia Pamphlet.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    E. H. Bersoff. Elements of software configuration management. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering., SE-10(1):79–87, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    C. Marlin. Modelling, comparison and design. In Proceedings of the 1994 Western Australian Computer Science Symposium, Claremont, Western Australia, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    D. Wiebe. Object oriented configuration management. Presented at the 4th International Workshop on Software Configuration Management, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    A. Mahler and A. Lampen. Integrating configuration management into a generic environment. In SIGSOFT '90 Proceedings on the Fourth ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Software Development Environments, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    R. Morrison, R. C. H. Connor, Q. I. Cutts, V. S. Dunstan, and G. N. C. Kirby. Exploiting persistenl linkage in software engineering environmenls. The Computer Journal, 38(1):1–16, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    W. F. Tichy. Tools for software configuration management. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Configuration and Version Control, pages 1–20, 1988.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    D. E. Perry and A. L. Wolf. Foundations for the study of software architecture. Software Engineering Notes, 17(4):40–52, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    A. van der Hoek, D. Heimbigner, and A. L. Wolf. Does configuration management have a future? In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Software Configuration Management, pages 173–6, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    P. Lambrix. Aspects of version management of composite objects. Thesis No. 328, Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bradley R. Schmerl
    • 1
  • Chris D. Marlin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceFlinders University of South AustraliaAdelaideSouth Australia

Personalised recommendations