Analyzing Component-Based Systems on the Basis of Architectural Constraints

  • Christian Lambertz
  • Mila Majster-Cederbaum
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7141)


Component-based development (CBD) is a promising approach to master design complexity. In addition, the knowledge about the architecture of a component system can help in establishing important system properties, which in general is computationally hard because of the state space explosion problem. Extending previous work, we here investigate the novel class of disjoint circular wait free component systems and show how we can use the architectural information to establish a condition for the important property of deadlock-freedom in polynomial time. A running example is included. We use the framework of interaction systems, but our result carries over to other CBD models.


Interaction System Label Transition System Architectural Constraint State Space Explosion Problem Partial Behavior 
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.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Hee, K.M., van der Toorn, R.A.: Component-based software architectures: a framework based on inheritance of behavior. Science of Computer Programming 42(2-3), 129–171 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen, R., Garlan, D.: A formal basis for architectural connection. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 6(3), 213–249 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arbab, F.: Reo: a channel-based coordination model for component composition. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 14(3), 329–366 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baier, C., Blechmann, T., Klein, J., Klüppelholz, S.: A Uniform Framework for Modeling and Verifying Components and Connectors. In: Field, J., Vasconcelos, V.T. (eds.) COORDINATION 2009. LNCS, vol. 5521, pp. 247–267. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barboni, E., Bastide, R.: Software components: a formal semantics based on coloured Petri nets. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Formal Aspects of Component Software (FACS 2005). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 160, pp. 57–73. Elsevier (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Basu, A., Bozga, M., Sifakis, J.: Modeling heterogeneous real-time components in BIP. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2006), pp. 3–12. IEEE Press (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baumeister, H., Hacklinger, F., Hennicker, R., Knapp, A., Wirsing, M.: A component model for architectural programming. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Formal Aspects of Component Software (FACS 2005). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 160, pp. 75–96. Elsevier (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  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.
    Bernardo, M., Ciancarini, P., Donatiello, L.: Architecting families of software systems with process algebras. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 11(4), 386–426 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bozga, M.D., Sfyrla, V., Sifakis, J.: Modeling synchronous systems in BIP. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Embedded software (EMSOFT 2009), pp. 77–86. ACM Press (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brookes, S.D., Roscoe, A.W.: Deadlock analysis in networks of communicating processes. Distributed Computing 4(4), 209–230 (1991)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheng, A., Esparza, J., Palsberg, J.: Complexity Results for 1-Safe Nets. In: Shyamasundar, R.K. (ed.) FSTTCS 1993. LNCS, vol. 761, pp. 326–337. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    da Silva, L.D., Perkusich, A.: Composition of software artifacts modelled using colored Petri nets. Science of Computer Programming 56(1-2), 171–189 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.: Interface Theories for Component-Based Design. In: Henzinger, T.A., Kirsch, C.M. (eds.) EMSOFT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2211, pp. 148–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doyen, L., Henzinger, T.A., Jobstmann, B., Petrov, T.: Interface theories with component reuse. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Embedded Software (EMSOFT 2008), pp. 79–88. ACM Press (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Godefroid, P., Wolper, P.: Using Partial Orders for the Efficient Verification of Deadlock Freedom and Safety Properties. In: Larsen, K.G., Skou, A. (eds.) CAV 1991. LNCS, vol. 575, pp. 332–342. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gößler, G., Sifakis, J.: Composition for Component-Based Modeling. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2852, pp. 443–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hennicker, R., Janisch, S., Knapp, A.: On the observable behaviour of composite components. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Formal Aspects of Component Software (FACS 2008). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 260, pp. 125–153. Elsevier (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lambertz, C.: Exploiting architectural constraints and branching bisimulation equivalences in component-based systems. In: Proceedings of the Doctoral Symposium of the 2nd World Congress on Formal Methods (FM 2009-DS), no. 0915 in Eindhoven University of Technology Technical Report, Eindhoven, pp. 1–7 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Majster-Cederbaum, M., Martens, M.: Compositional analysis of deadlock-freedom for tree-like component architectures. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Embedded Software (EMSOFT 2008), pp. 199–206. ACM Press (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Majster-Cederbaum, M., Martens, M.: Using architectural constraints for deadlock-freedom of component systems with multiway cooperation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering (TASE 2009), pp. 225–232. IEEE Press (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Majster-Cederbaum, M., Minnameier, C.: Everything is PSPACE-Complete in Interaction Systems. In: Fitzgerald, J.S., Haxthausen, A.E., Yenigun, H. (eds.) ICTAC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5160, pp. 216–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Majster-Cederbaum, M., Semmelrock, N.: Reachability in tree-like component systems is PSPACE-complete. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Formal Aspects of Component Software (FACS 2009). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 263, pp. 197–210. Elsevier (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Montesi, F., Sangiorgi, D.: A Model of Evolvable Components. In: Wirsing, M., Hofmann, M., Rauschmayer, A. (eds.) TGC 2010, LNCS, vol. 6084, pp. 153–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ramos, R., Sampaio, A., Mota, A.: Systematic Development of Trustworthy Component Systems. In: Cavalcanti, A., Dams, D.R. (eds.) FM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5850, pp. 140–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Plášil, F., Višňovský, S.: Behavior protocols for software components. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(11), 1056–1076 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Lambertz
    • 1
  • Mila Majster-Cederbaum
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations