Protocol Conformance Checking of Services with Exceptions

  • Christian Heike
  • Wolf Zimmermann
  • Andreas Both
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7592)


In our previous work we defined a conservative abstraction of the behaviour of service-oriented systems and a contract based on interactions (named service protocol) to be verified. We have achieved modeling unbound concurrency and unbound recursion within this abstraction. However, these works are based only on services that do not raise exceptions. In this paper, we extend our previous work such that service protocols can be verified even if the service interface may raise exceptions.


State Machine Model Check Transition Rule Regular Language Protocol Violation 
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., Garlan, D.: A formal basis for architectural connection. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 6(3), 213–249 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Both, A., Zimmermann, W.: Automatic protocol conformance checking of recursive and parallel BPEL systems. In: IEEE Sixth European Conference on Web Services, pp. 81–91. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Both, A., Zimmermann, W.: Automatic Protocol Conformance Checking of Recursive and Parallel Component-Based Systems. In: Chaudron, M.R.V., Szyperski, C.A., Reussner, R. (eds.) CBSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5282, pp. 163–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Both, A., Zimmermann, W.: A step towards a more practical protocol conformance checking algorithm. In: 35th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, pp. 458–465. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Both, A., Zimmermann, W., Franke, R.: Model checking of component protocol conformance – optimizations by reducing false negatives. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 263, 67–94 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bravetti, M., Zavattaro, G.: Contract-Based Discovery and Composition of Web Services. In: Bernardo, M., Padovani, L., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) SFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5569, pp. 261–295. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bures, T., Hnetynka, P., Plasil, F.: Sofa 2.0: Balancing advanced features in a hierarchical component model. In: Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications, pp. 40–48. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burkart, O., Steffen, B.: Model Checking for Context-free Processes. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) CONCUR 1992. LNCS, vol. 630, pp. 123–137. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burkart, O., Steffen, B.: Pushdown Processes: Parallel Composition and Model Checking. In: Jonsson, B., Parrow, J. (eds.) CONCUR 1994. LNCS, vol. 836, pp. 98–113. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dahl, O.-J., Nygaard, K.: Simula: an algol-based simulation language. Communications of the ACM 9(9), 671–678 (1966)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Foster, H., Uchitel, S., Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Model-based analysis of Web Services. In: ASE, pp. 152–163. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gorbenko, A., Romanovsky, A., Kharchenko, V., Mikhaylichenko, A.: Experimenting with exception propagation mechanisms in service-oriented architecture. In: Proc. of the 4th International Workshop on Exception Handling, pp. 1–7. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schmidt, H.W., Krämer, B.J., Poernomo, I., Reussner, R.: Predictable Component Architectures Using Dependent Finite State Machines. In: Wirsing, M., Knapp, A., Balsamo, S. (eds.) RISSEF 2002. LNCS, vol. 2941, pp. 310–324. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hauck, E.A., Dent, B.A.: Burroughs’ b6500/b7500 stack mechanism. In: AFIPS 1968 (Spring): Proc. of the April 30-May 2, 1968, Spring Joint Computer Conference, pp. 245–251. ACM (1968)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hopcroft, J.E., Motwani, R., Ullman, J.D.: Introduction to automata theory, languages, and computation, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jannach, D., Gut, A.: Exception Handling in Web Service Processes. In: Kaschek, R., Delcambre, L. (eds.) The Evolution of Conceptual Modeling. LNCS, vol. 6520, pp. 225–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Löwe, W., Neumann, R., Trapp, M., Zimmermann, W.: Robust dynamic exchange of implementation aspects. In: TOOLS 29 – Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems, pp. 351–360. IEEE (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mayr, R.: Process rewrite systems. Information and Computation 156(1-2), 264–286 (2000)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nierstrasz, O.: Regular types for active objects. In: Nierstrasz, O., Tsichritzis, D. (eds.) Object-Oriented Software Composition, pp. 99–121. Prentice-Hall (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Papazoglou, M.P., Traverso, P., Dustdar, S., Leymann, F.: Service-oriented computing: State of the art and research challenges. Computer, Innovative Technology for Computer Professionals 40(11), 38–45 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Parizek, P., Plasil, F.: Modeling of Component Environment in Presence of Callbacks and Autonomous Activities. In: Paige, R.F., Meyer, B. (eds.) TOOLS EUROPE 2008. LNBIP, vol. 11, pp. 2–21. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rajamani, S.K., Rehof, J.: Models for Contract Conformance. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2004. LNCS, vol. 4313, pp. 181–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reisig, W.: Modeling- and Analysis Techniques for Web Services and Business Processes. In: Steffen, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) FMOODS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3535, pp. 243–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Salaün, G., Bordeaux, L., Schaerf, M.: Describing and reasoning on web services using process algebra. In: International Conference on Web Services. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tenzer, J., Stevens, P.: Modelling Recursive Calls with UML State Diagrams. In: Pezzé, M. (ed.) FASE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2621, pp. 135–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Verification of Workflow Nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zimmermann, W., Schaarschmidt, M.: Automatic Checking of Component Protocols in Component-Based Systems. In: Löwe, W., Südholt, M. (eds.) SC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4089, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Heike
    • 1
  • Wolf Zimmermann
    • 2
  • Andreas Both
    • 3
  1. 1.Zuehlke Engineering AGSchlierenSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institut für InformatikUniversität Halle-WittenbergHalle/SaaleGermany
  3. 3.Unister GmbHLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations