A Developer-Friendly Approach for the Validation of Dynamic Compositions

  • Jacqueline Floch
  • Cyril Carrez
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6598)


A major challenge of dynamic composition is to find ways to model components and analyze their composition in order to guarantee that the composition is free from interaction errors and deadlocks. Existing techniques for validation typically require expert knowledge in formal modelling and reasoning, and do not lend themselves to be used at runtime. However, we find that a coarse-grained description of a composition can be sufficient to ensure the consistency of compositions and to detect potential deadlocks. Our approach requires software developers to specify component models from which the properties needed for validation at runtime can be derived, and to perform some well-formedness and compliancy checks at design time. The new development tasks are integrated in a UML-based development process using concepts that developers are familiar with. The assessment of the approach indicates that developers with ordinary modelling skills are able to detect problems in composition at an early stage, and thereby design safe systems in an efficient manner.


validation service modelling dynamic composition safe composition 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.-P.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Floch, J., Carrez, C., Cieślak, P., Rój, M., Sanders, R.T., Shiaa, M.M.: A Comprehensive Engineering Framework for Guaranteeing Component Compatibility. Journal of Systems and Software 83(10), 1759–1779 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Floch, J., Sanders, R.T., Bræk, R.: Compositional Service Engineering using Semantic Interfaces. In: di Nitto, E., Sassen, E., Traverso, P., Zwegers, A. (eds.) At Your Service: Service-Oriented Computing from an EU Perspective, pp. 101–128. MIT Press, Cambridge (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carrez, C., Floch, J., Sanders, R.T.: Describing Component Collaboration Using Goal Sequences. In: Meier, R., Terzis, S. (eds.) DAIS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5053, pp. 16–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sanders, R.T., Castejón, H.N., Kraemer, F.A., Bræk, R.: Using UML 2.0 Collaborations for Compositional Service Specification. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 460–475. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carrez, C. (ed.): SIMS Deliverable D2.3, SIMS Principles and Techniques for Service Engineering (2008),
  7. 7.
    Alpern, B., Schneider, F.: Recognizing Safety and Liveness. Journal of Distributed Computing 2, 117–126 (1987)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Floch, J.: Towards Plug-and-Play Services: Design and Validation using Roles. Dr. Ing thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Floch, J., Bræk, R.: Using Projections for the Detection of Anomalous Behaviours. In: Reed, R., Reed, J. (eds.) SDL 2003. LNCS, vol. 2708, pp. 251–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carrez, C., Fantechi, A., Najm, E.: Assembling components with Behavioural Contracts. Annales des Telecommunications 60(7-8), 989–1022 (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holzmann, G.J.: Design and Validation of Computer Protocols. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shiaa, M.M. (ed.): SIMS Deliverable D6.5, Trial Services, final version (2008),
  13. 13.
    Carrez, C.: Contrats Comportementaux pour Composants. Doctoral Thesis, ENST (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tarjan, T.: Depth-First Search and Linear Graph Algorithms. SIAM Journal on Computing 1(2), 146–160 (1972)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanders, R.T., Meland, P.H. (eds.): SIMS Deliverable D1.2, Scenarios and Requirements for Methods, Tools and Middleware - final version (2007),
  16. 16.
    Kraemer, F.A., Slåtten, V., Herrmann, P.: Tool Support for Rapid Composition, Analysis and Implementation of Reactive Services. Journal of Systems and Software 82(12), 2068–2080 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herrmann, P., Krumm, H.: A Framework for Modelling Transfer Protocols. Computer Networks 34(2), 317–337 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nir-Buchbinder, Y., Tzoref, R., Ur, S.: Deadlocks: From Exhibiting to Healing. In: Leucker, M. (ed.) RV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5289, pp. 104–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baresi, L., Bianculli, D., Guinea, S., Spoletini, P.: Keep It Small, Keep It Real: Efficient Run-Time Verification of Web Service Compositions. In: Lee, D., Lopes, A., Poetzsch-Heffter, A. (eds.) FMOODS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5522, pp. 26–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dong, W., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Impartial Anticipation in Runtime-Verification. In: Cha, S(S.), Choi, J.-Y., Kim, M., Lee, I., Viswanathan, M. (eds.) ATVA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5311, pp. 386–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Narayanan, S., McIlraith, S.A.: Simulation, Verification and Automated Composition of Web Services. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 77–88. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ding, J., Zhu, H., Zhu, H., Li, Q.: Formal Modeling and Verifications of Deadlock Prevention Solutions in Web Service Oriented System. In: Proceedings of 17th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, pp. 335–343. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Hee, K.M., Massuthe, P., Sidorova, N., van der Werf, J.M.: Compositional Service Trees. In: Franceschinis, G., Wolf, K. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5606, pp. 283–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacqueline Floch
    • 1
  • Cyril Carrez
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.SINTEF ICTTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Department of TelematicsNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations