A Theory Agenda for Component-Based Design

  • Joseph Sifakis
  • Saddek Bensalem
  • Simon Bliudze
  • Marius Bozga
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8950)


The aim of the paper is to present a theory agenda for component-based design based on results that motivated the development of the BIP component framework, to identify open problems and discuss further research directions. The focus is on proposing a semantically sound theoretical and general framework for modelling component-based systems and their properties both behavioural and architectural as well for achieving correctness by using scalable specific techniques.

We discuss the problem of composing components by proposing the concept of glue as a set of stateless composition operators defined by a certain type of operational semantics rules. We provide an overview of results about glue expressiveness and minimality. We show how interactions and associated transfer of data can be described by using connectors and in particular, how dynamic connectors can be defined as an extension of static connectors. We present two approaches for achieving correctness for component-based systems. One is by compositional inference of global properties of a composite component from properties of its constituents and interaction constraints implied by composition operators. The other is by using and composing architectures that enforce specific coordination properties. Finally, we discuss recent results on architecture specification by studying two types of logics: 1) interaction logics for the specification of sets of allowed interactions; 2) configuration logics for the characterisation of architecture styles.


Composition Operator Composite Component Temperature Control System Theory Agendum Component Framework 
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.
    Allen, R.B., Douence, R., Garlan, D.: Specifying and analyzing dynamic software architectures. In: Astesiano, E. (ed.) ETAPS 1998 and FASE 1998. LNCS, vol. 1382, pp. 21–37. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arbab, F.: Reo: a channel-based coordination model for component composition. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 14(3), 329–366 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aştefănoaei, L., Ben Rayana, S., Bensalem, S., Bozga, M., Combaz, J.: Compositional invariant generation for timed systems. In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014 (ETAPS). LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 263–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Attie, P., Baranov, E., Bliudze, S., Jaber, M., Sifakis, J.: A general framework for architecture composability. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Salaün, G. (eds.) SEFM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8702, pp. 128–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baranov, E., Bliudze, S.: Offer semantics: Achieving compositionality, flattening and full expressiveness for the glue operators in BIP. Technical Report EPFL-REPORT-203507, EPFL IC IIF RiSD (November 2014),
  6. 6.
    Basu, A., Bozga, M., Sifakis, J.: Modeling heterogeneous real-time components in BIP. In: 4th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM), pp. 3–12. IEEE Computer Society (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bensalem, S., Bozga, M., Boyer, B., Legay, A.: Incremental generation of linear invariants for component-based systems. In: 13th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD), pp. 80–89. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bensalem, S., Bozga, M., Legay, A., Nguyen, T.-H., Sifakis, J., Yan, R.: Incremental component-based construction and verification using invariants. In: Bloem, R., Sharygina, N. (eds.) 10th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD), pp. 257–256. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bensalem, S., Bozga, M., Nguyen, T.-H., Sifakis, J.: D-finder: A tool for compositional deadlock detection and verification. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 614–619. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bensalem, S., Bozga, M., Nguyen, T.-H., Sifakis, J.: Compositional verification for component-based systems and application. IET Software 4(3), 181–193 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bensalem, S., Bozga, M., Sifakis, J., Nguyen, T.-H.: Compositional verification for component-based systems and application. In: Cha, S(S.), Choi, J.-Y., Kim, M., Lee, I., Viswanathan, M. (eds.) ATVA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5311, pp. 64–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bensalem, S., Griesmayer, A., Legay, A., Nguyen, T.-H., Peled, D.: Efficient deadlock detection for concurrent systems. In: Singh, S., Jobstmann, B., Kishinevsky, M., Brandt, J. (eds.) 9th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Codesign (MEMOCODE), pp. 119–129. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bliudze, S.: Towards a theory of glue. In: Carbone, M., Lanese, I., Silva, A., Sokolova, A. (eds.) 5th International Conference on Interaction and Concurrency Experience (ICE). EPTCS, vol. 104, pp. 48–66 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bliudze, S., Sifakis, J.: The algebra of connectors — Structuring interaction in BIP. In: 7th ACM & IEEE International Conference on Embedded Software (EMSOFT), pp. 11–20. ACM SigBED (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bliudze, S., Sifakis, J.: A notion of glue expressiveness for component-based systems. In: van Breugel, F., Chechik, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5201, pp. 508–522. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bliudze, S., Sifakis, J.: Causal semantics for the algebra of connectors. Formal Methods in System Design 36(2), 167–194 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bliudze, S., Sifakis, J., Bozga, M., Jaber, M.: Architecture internalisation in BIP. In: Proceedings of The 17th International ACM Sigsoft Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering (CBSE), pp. 169–178. ACM (July 2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bonakdarpour, B., Bozga, M., Jaber, M., Quilbeuf, J., Sifakis, J.: From high-level component-based models to distributed implementations. In: 10th ACM International Conference on Embedded Software (EMSOFT), pp. 209–218. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bozga, M., Jaber, M., Maris, N., Sifakis, J.: Modeling dynamic architectures using dy-BIP. In: Gschwind, T., De Paoli, F., Gruhn, V., Book, M. (eds.) SC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7306, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bozga, M., Jaber, M., Sifakis, J.: Source-to-source architecture transformation for performance optimization in BIP. In: IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems (SIES), pp. 152–160 (July 2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bruni, R., Melgratti, H., Montanari, U.: Behaviour, interaction and dynamics. In: Iida, S., Meseguer, J., Ogata, K. (eds.) Specification, Algebra, and Software. LNCS, vol. 8373, pp. 382–401. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dhungana, D., Rabiser, R., Grünbacher, P., Prähofer, H., Federspiel, C., Lehner, K.: Architectural knowledge in product line engineering: An industrial case study. In: 32nd EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (EUROMICRO-SEAA), pp. 186–197. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D’Souza, D., Gopinathan, M.: Conflict-tolerant features. In: Gupta, A., Malik, S. (eds.) CAV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5123, pp. 227–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eker, J., Janneck, J., Lee, E., Liu, J., Liu, X., Ludvig, J., Neuendorffer, S., Sachs, S., Xiong, Y.: Taming heterogeneity—The Ptolemy approach. Proceedings of the IEEE 91(1), 127–144 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fares, E., Bodeveix, J.-P., Filali, M.: Event algebra for transition systems composition - application to timed automata. In: Sánchez, C., Venable, K.B., Zimányi, E. (eds.) 20th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME), pp. 125–132 (September 2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall (April 1985)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    ISO/IEC. Information technology – Object Management Group – Object Constraint Language (OCL). Technical Report ISO/IEC 19507, ISO, Object Management Group (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    ISO/IEC/IEEE. Systems and software engineering – Architecture description. Technical Report ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010, ISO (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Koehler, C., Lazovik, A., Arbab, F.: Connector rewriting with high-level replacement systems. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 194(4), 77–92 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kumar, A.: Software architecture styles a survey. International Journal of Computer Applications 87(9) (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lustig, Y., Vardi, M.: Synthesis from component libraries. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 15(5-6), 603–618 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Metayer, D.L.: Describing software architecture styles using graph grammars. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 24(7), 521–533 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Milner, R.: Calculi for synchrony and asynchrony. Theoretical Computer Science 25(3), 267–310 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science. Prentice-Hall (1989)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Milner, R.: Communicating and Mobile Systems: The π-calculus. Cambridge University Press (1999)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Papadopoulos, G.A., Arbab, F.: Configuration and dynamic reconfiguration of components using the coordination paradigm. Future Generation Computer Systems 17, 1023–1038 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Plath, M., Ryan, M.: Feature integration using a feature construct. Science of Computer Programming 41(1), 53–84 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Plotkin, G.D.: A structural approach to operational semantics. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 60-61, 17–139 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Sifakis
    • 1
  • Saddek Bensalem
    • 2
    • 3
  • Simon Bliudze
    • 1
  • Marius Bozga
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.EPFL, Rigorous System Design LaboratoryLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Université Grenoble Alpes, VERIMAGGrenobleFrance
  3. 3.CNRS, VERIMAGGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations