Aurora: An architecture for dynamic and adaptive work sessions in open environments

  • Manolis Marazakis
  • Dimitris Papadakis
  • Christos Nikolaou
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1460)


This paper presents the Aurora architecture for network-centric applications, complementing the CORB A and WWW/Java frameworks with support for composition of services. The architecture addresses the requirements of dynamic open environments with multiple autonomous service providers. The paper presents a detailed technical design of the run-time infrastructure that enables on-demand composition of services. Aurora is based on a container framework, which provides the basis for dynamic and adaptive composition, as well as detailed monitoring and tracking. Work sessions are implemented as networks of active containers. A distinguishing feauture of Aurora is that such networks can be inspected and manipulated at run-time.


Composite Service Application Component Session Manager Service Flow Work Session 
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.
    The Common Object Request Broker: Architecture and Specification”. Object Management Group, Pramingham, Mass., 1994. Revision 2.0.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Berners-Lee and R. Cailliau and A. Luotonen and H. Frystyk-Nielsen and A. Secret. “The World Wide Web”. Communications of the ACM, 37(8):76–82, August 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Arnold and J. Gosling. The Java Programming Language. Java Series. Addison-Wesley, May 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Marazakis, D. Papadakis, and C. Nikolaou. “The Aurora Architecture for Developing Network-Centric Applications by Dynamic Composition of Services”. Technical Report TR 213, FORTH/ICS, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Nikolaou, M. Marazakis, D. Papadakis, Y. Yeorgiannakis, and J. Sairamesh. “Towards a Common Infrastructure to Support Large-Scale Distributed Applications”. In Proc. European Conference on Advanced Technologies for Digital Libraries, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Barbara, S. Mehrotra, and M. Rusinkiewicz. “INCAs: Managing Dynamic Workflows in Distributed Environment”. Journal of Database Management, 7(1), 1996. Special Issue on Multidatabases.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    O. Nierstrasz, D. Tsichritzis, V. deMey, and M. Stadelmann. “Object + Scripts = Applications”. In D. Tsichritzis, editor, Object Composition. University of Geneva, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Oki, M. Pfluegl, A. Siegel, and D. Skeen. “The Information Bus — An Architecture for Extensible Distributed Systems”. In Proc. ACM Symposium on Operating System Pronciples, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U. Dayal, M. Hsu, and R. Ladin. “Organizing Long-Running Activities with Triggers and Transactions”. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    “Trading Object Service Specification”. In CORBAservices: Common Object Services Specification. Object Management Group, Pramingham, Mass., 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Georgakopoulos, M. Hornik, and A. Sheth. “An Overview of Workflow Management: From Process Modeling to Workflow Automation Infrastructure”. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 3(2):119–154, April 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. Krishnakumar and A. Sheth. “Managing Heterogeneous Multi-System Tasks to Support Enterprise-Wide Operations”. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 3(2), April 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Alonso, D. Agrawal, A. El Abbadi, C. Mohan, M. Kamath, and R. Guenthoer. “Exotica/FMQM: A Persistent Message-Based Architecture for Distributed Work-flow Management”. In Proc. IFIP Working Conference on Information Systems Development for Decentralized Organizations, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Ceri, P. Grefen, and G. Sanchez. “WIDE: A Distributed Architecture for Work-flow Management”. In Proc. 7th Int'l Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K.M. Chandy, A. Chelian, B. Dimitrov, H. Le, J. Mandelson, M. Richardson, A. Rifkin, P.A.G. Sivilotti, W. Tanaka, and L. Weisman. “A World-Wide Distributed System Using Java and the Internet”. In Proc. 5th IEEE Int'l Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Grasso, J.L. Meunier, D. Pagani, and R. Pareschi. “Distributed Coordination and Workflow on the World Wide Web”. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 6:175–200, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Sheth, K. Kochut, J. Miller, D. Worah, S. Das, C. Lin, D. Palaniswami, J. Lynch, and I. Shevchenko. “Supporting State-Wide Immunization Tracking using Multi-Paradigm Workflow Technology”. In Proc. VLDB Conference, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Asit and F. Parr. “The Coyote Approach for Network-Centric Service Applications: Conversational Service Transactions, a Monitor and an Application Style”. In Proc. High Performance Transaction Processing (HTPS) Workshop, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Sheth. “From Contemporary Workflow Process Automation to Adaptive and Dynamic Work Activity Coordination and Collaboration”. In Proc. Workshop on Workflow Management in Scientific and Engineering Applications, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manolis Marazakis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dimitris Papadakis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christos Nikolaou
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CreteGreece
  2. 2.Institute of Computer ScienceFORTHHeraklionGreece

Personalised recommendations