Dynamic Creation of Monitoring Infrastructures

  • Howard Foster
  • George Spanoudakis
Conference paper


As a key part of monitoring and management, systems developed with a Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) design pattern should utilise negotiated agreements between service providers and requesters. Typically, the results of these negotiations are specified in Service Level Agreements (SLAs), which are then used to monitor key levels of service provided, and to optionally specify preconditions and actions in case these levels are violated.


Service Level Agreement Monitoring Feature Service Instance Instance Variable Input Type 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baresi, L., Bianculli, D., Ghezzi, C.: Validation ofWeb Service Compositions. IET Software 1(6), 219–232 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baresi, L., Guinea, S.: Towards Dynamic Monitoring of WS-BPEL Processes. In: International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC) (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bianculli, D., Ghezzi, C.: Monitoring Conversational Web Services. In:2nd International Workshop on Service Oriented Software Engineering (IWSOSWE) (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Comuzzi, M., Spanoudakis, G.: Dynamic Set-up of Monitoring Infrastructures for Service-Based Systems. In: 25th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Track on Service Oriented Architectures and Programming (SAC 2010). ACM, Sierre, Switzerland (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Foster, H., Spanoudakis, G.: Model-Driven Service Configuration with Formal SLA Decomposition and Selection. In: The 4th International Symposium On Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation (ISoLA). Crete, Greece (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Foster, H., Spanoudakis, G.: Advanced Service Monitoring Configurations with SLA Decomposition and Selection. In: 26th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC) Track on Service Oriented Architectures and Programming (SOAP). ACM, TaiChung, Taiwan (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    IT-Tude: SLA Monitoring and Evaluation Technology Solution. Available from: (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jank, K.: Reference Architecture: Adaptive Services Grid Deliverable D6.V-1. Available from: (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lazovik, A., Aiello, M., Papazoglou, M.: Planning and Monitoring the Execution of Web Service Requests. International Journal of Digital Libraries (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    OSGi Alliance: OSGi Service Platform Core Specification Version 4.2. Available from: (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pistore, M., Barbon, F., Bertoli, P., Shaparau, D., Traverso, P.: Planning and Monitoring Web Service Composition. In: AIMSA, pp. 106–115 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Richter, J., Baruwal, C., Kowalczyk, R., Quoc Vo, B., Adeel Talib, M., Colman, A.: Utility Decomposition and Surplus Redistribution in Composite SLA Negotiation. In: IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sahai, A., Machiraju, V., Sayal, M., Jin, L.J., Casati, F.: Automated SLA Monitoring for Web Services. In: IEEE/IFIP DSOM, pp. 28–41. Springer-Verlag (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    SLA@SOI: Deliverable D.A1a: Framework Architecture. Available from: (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spanoudakis, G., Kloukinas, C., Mahbub, K.: The SERENITY Runtime Monitoring Framework. In: Security and Dependability for Ambient Intelligence, Information Security Series. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sun Microsystems: The Java Compiler Compiler (JavaCC). Available from: (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    TrustCOM: Deliverable 64: Final TrustCoM Reference Implementation and Associated Tools and User Manual. Available from: http://www.eutrustcom. com/ (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yuan, C., Iyer, S., Liu, X., Milojicic, D., Sahai, A.: SLA Decomposition: Translating Service Level Objectives to System Level Thresholds. In: Fourth International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC) (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Menychtas, A., Gogouvitis, S., Katsaros, G., Konstanteli, K., Kousiouris, G., Kyriazis, D., Oliveros, E., Umanesan, G., Malcolm, M., Oberle, K., Voith, T., Boniface, M., Bassem, M., Berger, S.: Deliverable D3.1.3: Updated version of IRMOS Overall Architecture. Available from: (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ComputingCity University LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations