Process engine interoperability: An experiment

  • Jacky Estublier
  • Samir Dami
Architecture session
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1149)


Now applications are built from a collection of existing offthe-shelf (large) tools which interoperate with each other. Each one of the components may embody its own data and process management, often in an ad hoc way. The work presented here investigates a way to make different built-in process fragments, and general process engines (1) communicate and synchronize with each other; (2) behave in a consistent way; (3) appear to modelers and users as a single process support tool. We have addressed those issues about interoperability in developing an heterogeneous process engine built atop two commercially available tools: Process Weaver and Adele. The main objective was to build an Abstract Process Engine out of the two basic tools, which, without implying any change in their kernels, makes both the two interoperate in a peer-to-peer fashion and with respect to the three requirements stated above. The paper describes the major difficulties encountered in our experience doing this work, how they were overcome, as well as the lessons learned. Finally and in order to put this work in a broader context, an analysis of the current state of the art in the domain of Process Engine Interoperability will conclude the paper.


Software Process Technology Process Support Process Interoperability Communication Software Environments 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [BBFL94]
    S. Bandinelli, M. Barga, Alfonso Fuggetta, and L. Lavazza. The Architecture of the SPADE-1 Process Centeresd SEE., volume 635 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, Villard de Lans, France, February 1994.Google Scholar
  2. [BBF+94]
    S. Bandinelli, M. Barga, Alfonso Fuggetta, C. Ghezzi, and L. Lavazza. SPADE An Environment for Software Process Analysis, Design and Enactment. John Willey and Son inc, Research Study Press, Tauton Somerset, England, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. [BN93]
    R. Balzer and K. Narayanaswamy. Mechanisms for generic process support. In Proc. of ACM SIGSOFT Symposium of Software Foundation, pages 21–32, Los Angeles, CA, USA, December 1993.Google Scholar
  4. [Da94]
    S. Dami and all. Internal specification of apel v1. Esprit deliverable, projet perfect, LGI, May 1994.Google Scholar
  5. [DEA97]
    S. Dami, J. Estublier and M. Amiour. The APEL Process Support Environment. Submitted to “Automated Software Environment”. 1997.Google Scholar
  6. [DPR95]
    S. Dami, P. Pouzet, and J. Routin. Internal specification of apel v2. Esprit deliverable, projet perfect, LGI, March 1995.Google Scholar
  7. [JC94]
    J. Estublier and R. Casallas. The Adele Software Configuration Manager, chapter 4, pages 99–139. Trends in Software. J. Wiley and Sons, Baffins Lane, Chichester West Sussex, PO19 1UD, England, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. [ED95]
    J. Estublier and S. Dami. APEL v3 specification. Esprit deliverable, projet perfect, LSR, December 1995.Google Scholar
  9. [F93]
    C. Fernstrom. “Process Weaver: adding process support to Unix.” In Osterweil 51, pages 12–26. 1993Google Scholar
  10. [Fou93]
    Open Software Foundation. OSF DCE Application Developement Guide. Pentice Hall, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. [Fug93]
    [Fug93] A. Fuggetta. A Classification of CASE Technology. IEEE Computer, pages 25–38, December 1993.Google Scholar
  12. [GMP+94]
    P. Garg, P. Mi, T. Pham, W. Scacchi, and G. Thunquest. The smart approach for software process engineering. In ICSE, Sorrento, Italie, May 1994.Google Scholar
  13. [Gro93]
    OMG Group. The common object request broquer. Technical report, OMG, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. [Hol94]
    D. Hollingsworth. Workflow management coalition. the workflow reference model. Technical report, The Workflow Management Coalition, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. [LYtPW96]
    J. Lee, G. Yost, and the PIF WorkGroup. The pif process interchange format and framework. Technical report, PIF WorkGroup, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. [MHO96]
    M. Maybee, D. Heimbigner, and L. Osterwiel. Multilanguage interoperability in distributed systems: Experience report. In Proc. of the 18th Int'l Conf. on Software Engineering, Berlin, Germany, March 25–30 1996.Google Scholar
  17. [Mic94]
    Microsoft. Ole 2 programmers reference. Technical report, Microsoft., 1994.Google Scholar
  18. [OPR96]
    R. Otte, P. Patrick, and M. Roy. Understanding CORBA the Common Object Request Broker Architecture. Prentice Hall, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. [SM93]
    W. Scacchi and P. Mi. Experiences in the modeling, analysis, and simulation of formalized software processes. In W. Shafer, editor, Proc. of the 8th Int'l Software Process Workshop, Germany, 1993. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacky Estublier
    • 1
  • Samir Dami
    • 1
  1. 1.L.S.R.GrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations