research-article

Open access

Rigorous development of component-based systems using component metadata and patterns

Authors:

M. V. M. Oliveira,

A. W. RoscoeAuthors Info & Claims

Formal Aspects of Computing, Volume 28, Issue 6

Pages 937 - 1004

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-016-0375-1

Published: 01 November 2016 Publication History

Abstract

In previous work we presented a CSP-based systematic approach that fosters the rigorous design of component-based development. Our approach is strictly defined in terms of composition rules, which are the only permitted way to compose components. These rules guarantee the preservation of properties (particularly deadlock freedom) by construction in component composition. Nevertheless, their application is allowed only under certain conditions whose verification via model checking turned out impracticable even for some simple designs, and particularly those involving cyclic topologies. In this paper, we address the performance of the analysis and present a significantly more efficient alternative to the verification of the rule side conditions, which are improved by carrying out partial verification on component metadata throughout component compositions and by using behavioural patterns. The use of metadata, together with behavioural patterns, demands new composition rules, which allow previous exponential time verifications to be carried out now in linear time. Two case studies (the classical dining philosophers, also used as a running example, and an industrial version of a leadership election algorithm) are presented to illustrate and validate the overall approach.

References

References

[1]

Aldini A, Bernardo M (2003) A general approach to deadlock freedom verification for software architectures. In: International symposium of formal methods Europe. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2805. Springer, New York, pp 658–677

[2]

Aldrich J, Chambers C, Notkin D (2002) Archjava: connecting software architecture to implementation. In: International conference on software engineering. ACM Press, New York

[3]

Allen R, Douence R, Garlan D (1998) Specifying and analyzing dynamic software architectures. In: Conference on fundamental approaches to software engineering (FASE). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1382, Lisbon

[4]

Allen R (1997) A formal approach to software architecture. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, CMU Technical Report CMUU-CS–97–144

[5]

Antonino PRG, Oliveira MVM, Sampaio ACA, Kristensen KE, Bryans JW (2014) Leadership election: an industrial sos application of compositional deadlock verification. In: NASA formal methods - 6th international symposium (NFM’14).Lecture notes in computer science, vol 8430. Springer, New York, pp 31–45

[6]

Arbab F Reo: a channel-based coordination model for component composition Math Struct Comput Sci 2004 14 3 329-366

Digital Library

[7]

Antonino PRG, Sampaio A, Woodcock J (2014) A refinement based strategy for local deadlock analysis of networks of csp processes. In: FM 2014: formal methods. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 8430 pp 62–77

[8]

Bensalem S, Bozga M, Nguyen T-H, and Sifakis J Compositional verification for component-based systems and application IET Softw 2010 4 12 181-193

[9]

Bernardo M, Ciancarini P, and Donatiello L Architecting families of software systems with process algebras ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 2002 11 4 386-426

Digital Library

[10]

Bruneton E, Coupaye T, Leclercq M, Quéma V, and Stefani JB The FRACTAL component model and its support in Java Softw Pract Exp 2006 36 11–12 1257-1284

[11]

Basu A, Gallien M, Lesire C, Nguyen T-H, Bensalem S, Ingrand F, Sifakis J (2008) Incremental component-based construction and verification of a robotic system. In: 18th European conference on artificial intelligence. Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol 178. IOS, pp 631–635 Press

[12]

Bensalem S, Griesmayer A, Legay A, Nguyen T-H, Sifakis J, Yan R (2011) D-finder 2: towards efficient correctness of incremental design. In: NASA formal methods. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6617. Springer, New York, pp 453–458

[13]

Bures T, Hnetynka P, Plasil F (2006) SOFA 2.0: balancing advanced features in a hierarchical component model. In: 4th international conference on software engineering research, management and applications. IEEE, pp 40–48

[14]

Brada P (2002) Metadata support for safe component upgrades. In: 26th international computer software and applications conference. IEEE, pp 1017–1021

[15]

Brada P Enhanced type-based component compatibility using deployment context information Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 2011 279 2 17-31

Digital Library

[16]

Beyer D, Wendler P (2013) Reuse of verification results. In: Model checking software. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7976. Springer, New York, pp 1–17

[17]

Cheung E, Chen X, Hsieh H, Davare A, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli A, and Watanabe Y Runtime deadlock analysis for system level design Des Autom Embed Syst 2009 13 4 287-310

Digital Library

[18]

Chi Z (2009) Components composition compatibility checking based on behavior description and roles division. In: International conference on management of e-commerce and e-government. IEEE, pp 262–265

[19]

Chen X, He J, Liu Z, Zhan N (2007) A model of component-based programming. In: International symposium on fundamentals of software engineering. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4767. Springer, New York, pp 191–206

[20]

Cheung S and Kramer J Context constraints for compositional reachability analysis ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 1996 5 4 334-377

Digital Library

[21]

Cordy M, Schobbens P, Heymans P, Legay A (2012) Towards an incremental automata-based approach for software product-line model checking. In: 16th international software product line conference. ACM, New York, pp 74–81

[22]

Craig DC, Zuberek WM (2007) Compatibility of software components-modeling and verification. In: International conference on dependability of computer systems. IEEE, pp 11–18

[23]

DeMichiel L, Keith M (2006) Enterprise javabeans specification, version 3.0. Technical Report JSR 220, Sun Microsystems

[24]

Dias MS, Richardson DJ (2002) Identifying cause and effect relations between events in concurrent event-based components. In: 17th IEEE international conference on automated software engineering. IEEE, pp 245–248

[25]

Dihego, J, Sampaio ACA, Oliveira MVM (2015) Constructive extensibility of trustworthy component-based systems. In: Proceedings of the 30th annual ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC’15). ACM, New York

[26]

Fitzgerald J, Foster S, Ingram C, Larsen PG, Woodcock J (2013) Model-based engineering for systems of systems: the compass manifesto. Technical report, COMPASS. http://www.compass-research.eu/Project/Publications/MBESoS.pdf. Accessed 22 Apr 2016

[27]

Farias A and Guéhéneuc Y On the coherence of component protocols Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 2003 82 5 42-53

[28]

Findler RB, Latendresse M, and Felleisen M Behavioral contracts and behavioral subtyping ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 2001 26 5 229-236

Digital Library

[29]

Formal Systems (Europe) Ltd. (1998) Process behaviour explorer—ProBE user manual

[30]

Formal Systems Ltd. (2012) FDR2: user manual, version 2.94

[31]

George B Mascot 3: an informal introductory tutorial Softw Eng J 1986 1 7 95-102

Digital Library

[32]

Gößler G, Graf S, Majster-Cederbaum M, Martens M, Sifakis J. (2006) Ensuring properties of interaction systems. In: Theory and practice on program analysis and compilation. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4444. Springer, New York, pp 201–224

[33]

Gößler G, Graf S, Majster-Cederbaum M, Martens M, Sifakis J (2007) An approach to modelling and verification of component based systems. In: Current trends in theory and practice of computer science. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4362. Springer, New York, pp 295–308

[34]

Ghezzi C (2012) Evolution, adaptation, and the quest for incrementality. In: Large-scale complex it systems. Development, operation and management. Springer, New York, pp 369–379

[35]

Gibson-Robinson T, Armstrong P, Boulgakov A, Roscoe AW (2014) FDR3—a modern model checker for CSP. In: Erika Ábrahám, Klaus Havelund (eds) Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 8413, pp 187–201

[36]

Hepner M, Gamble R, Kelkar M, Davis L, and Flagg D Patterns of conflict among software components J Syst Softw 2006 79 4 537-551

Digital Library

[37]

Hennicker R, Janisch S, and Knapp A On the observable behaviour of composite components ENTCS 2010 260 125-153

Digital Library

[38]

He J, Li X, and Liu Z rCOS: a refinement calculus of object systems Theor Comput Sci 2006 365 1–2 109-142

Digital Library

[39]

He J, Li X, and Liu Z A theory of reactive components Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 2006 160 173-195

[40]

Hoare CAR Communicating sequential processes 1985 USA Prentice-Hall

Digital Library

[41]

Ivers J, Moreno G (2008) PACC starter kit: developing software with predictable behavior. In: ICSE companion. ACM, New York, pp 949–950

[42]

Kwiatkowska XWM (2007) Compositional state space reduction using untangled actions. In: 13th international workshop on expressiveness in concurrency. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 175:27–46

[43]

Lazić R (1999) A semantic study of data-independence with applications to the mechanical verification of concurrent systems. Ph.D. thesis, Oxford University, Oxford

[44]

Leavens G, Dhara K (2000) Concepts of behavioral subtyping and a sketch of their extension to Component-Based systems. In: Foundations of component-based systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 113–135

[45]

Leveson N (1995) Safeware: system safety and computers. Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park

[46]

Lambertz C, Majster-Cederbaum ME (2010) Port protocols for deadlock-freedom of component systems. In: Bliudze S, Bruni R, Grohmann D, Silva A (eds) ICE. EPTCS, vol 38, pp 7–11

[47]

Lau K-K, Ukis V (2005) Component metadata in component-based software development: a survey. Preprint CSPP-34, School of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester

[48]

Liskov BH, Wing JM (1994) A behavioural notion of subtyping. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 16(6):1811–1841

[49]

Mahoney M The roots of software engineering CWI Q 1990 3 4 325-334

[50]

Martin JMR (1996) The design and construction of deadlock-free concurrent systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Buckingham, Buckingham

[51]

Majster-Cederbaum M, Martens M (2007) Robustness in interaction systems. In: 27th international conference on formal methods for networked and distributed systems. Lecture notes of computer science, vol 4574. Springer, New York, pp 325–340

[52]

Majster-Cederbaum M, Martens M (2008) Compositional analysis of deadlock-freedom for tree-like component architectures. In: 8th ACM international conference on embedded software. ACM, New York, pp 199–206

[53]

Majster-Cederbaum M, Martens M, Minnameier C (2007) A polynomial-time checkable sufficient condition for deadlock-freedom of component-based systems. In: SOFSEM 2007: theory and practice of computer science, pp 888–899

[54]

Majster-Cederbaum M, Martens M, and Minnameier C Liveness in interaction systems Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 2008 215 57-74

Digital Library

[55]

Merson P, Hissam S (2005) Predictability by construction. In: 20th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications. ACM, New York, pp 134–135

[56]

Microsoft Developer Network (2011) Component object model technologies. Technical report. http://www.microsoft.com. Accessed 22 Apr 2016

[57]

Minnameier C Local and global deadlock-detection in component-based systems are NP-hard Inf Process Lett 2007 103 3 105-111

Digital Library

[58]

Mota A, Jesus J, Gomes A, Ferri F, Watanabe E (2010) Evolving a safe system design iteratively. In: 29th international conference computer safety, reliability, and security. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6351. Springer, New York, pp 361–374

[59]

Magee J, Kramer J (1996) Dynamic structures in software architecture. In: 4th symposium on the foundations of software engineering. ACM, New York, pp 3–14

[60]

Medvidovic N and Taylor R A classification and comparison framework for software architecture description languages Trans Softw Eng 2000 26 1 70-93

Digital Library

[61]

Martin JMR and Welch PH A design strategy for deadlock-free concurrent systems Transput Commun 1997 3 4 215-232

[62]

Nierstrasz O Regular types for active objects ACM Sigplan Not 1993 28 10 1-15

Digital Library

[63]

Object Management Group (2007) Unified modeling language, superstructure, V2.1.2. Technical report formal/2007-11-02, OMG, 2007. OMG adopted specification

[64]

Orso A, Do H, Rothermel G, Harrold MJ, and Rosenblum DS Using component metadata to regression test component-based software Softw Test Verif Reliab 2007 17 2 61-94

[65]

OMG (2012) OMG systems modeling language (OMG SysML), version 1.3. Technical report, Object Management Group

[66]

Ouaknine J, Palikareva H, Roscoe AW, Worrell J (2013) A static analysis framework for livelock freedom in CSP. Log Methods Comput Sci 9(3):1–53

[67]

Oliveira MVM, Sampaio ACA, Antonino PRG, Ramos RT, Cavancalti ALC, Woodcock JCP (2013) Compositional analysis and design of CML models. Technical report D24.1, COMPASS deliverable. http://www.compass-research.eu/. Accessed 22 Apr 2016

[68]

Papadopoulos G and Arbab F Coordination models and languages Adv Comput Eng Large Syst 1998 46 330-401

[69]

Plasil F (2005) Enhancing component specification by behavior description: the SOFA experience. In: 4th international symposium on Information and communication technologies. Trinity College, Dublin, p 190

[70]

Plasil F and Visnovsky S Behavior protocols for software components IEEE Trans Softw Eng 2002 28 11 1056-1076

Digital Library

[71]

Roscoe AW (1998) The theory and practice of concurrency. In: Prentice-Hall series in computer science. Prentice-Hall, USA

[72]

Roscoe AW (2005) The pursuit of buffer tolerance. Technical report, Oxford University, Oxford

[73]

Roscoe AW Confluence thanks to extensional determinism Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 2006 162 305-309

[74]

Roscoe AW Understanding concurrent systems, 2010 1 New York Springer

Digital Library

[75]

Ryan P and Schneider S Process algebra and non-interference J Comput Secur 2001 9 1 75-103

[76]

Ramos RT, Sampaio ACA, Mota AC (2006) Transformation laws for UML-RT. In: 8th IFIP international conference on formal methods for open object-based distributed systems. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4037. Springer, New York, pp 123–138

[77]

Ramos RT, Sampaio ACA, Mota AC (2009) Systematic development of trustworthy component systems. In: 2nd world congress on formal methods. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5850. Springer, New York, pp 140–156

[78]

Ramos RT, Sampaio ACA, and Mota AC Conformance notions for the coordination of interaction components Sci Comput Program 2010 75 5 350-373

Digital Library

[79]

Selic B, Gullekson G, Ward P (1994) Real-time object-oriented modeling. Wiley, New York

[80]

Sifakis J (2010) Component-based construction of heterogeneous real-time systems in bip. In: The future of software engineering, p 150

[81]

Sampaio A, Nogueira S, Mota A, and Isobe Y Sound and mechanised compositional verification of input-output conformance Softw Test Verif Reliab 2014 24 4 289-319

Digital Library

[82]

Spitznagel B (2004) Compositional transformation of software connectors. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Number: CMU-CS-04-128.

[83]

Selic B, Rumbaugh J (1998) Using UML for modeling complex RealTime systems. Technical report, Rational Software Corporation

[84]

Sinha N, Singhania N, Chandra S, Sridharan M (2012) Alternate and learn: finding witnesses without looking all over. In: Computer aided verification. Springer, New York, pp 599–615

[85]

Szyperski C Component software: beyond object-oriented programming 2002 USA Addisonn-Wesley

Digital Library

[86]

Wallnau KC (2003) Volume III: a technology for predictable assembly from certifiable components. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2003-TR-009, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh

[87]

Wehrheim H (2000) Specification of an automatic manufacturing system: a case study in using integrated formal methods. In: 3rd internationsl conference fundamental approaches to software engineering. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1783. Springer, New York, pp 334–348

[88]

Zhan N, Kang E, and Liu Z Component publications and compositions Unifying Theor Program 2010 5713 238-257

[89]

Zeng H, Miao H (2010) Deadlock detection for parallel composition of components. In: Computer and information science, pp 23–34

[90]

Zuberek W (2011) Incremental composition of software components. In: Dependable computer systems, pp 301–311

Cited By

Banga ABhatia P(2024)Accuracy enhancement of Component based selection model using Hybrid Soft computing2024 Sixth International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Communication Technologies (CCICT)10.1109/CCICT62777.2024.00035(149-156)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/CCICT62777.2024.00035
Falcão FLima LSampaio AAntonino P(2023)A formal component model for UML based on CSP aiming at compositional verificationSoftware and Systems Modeling (SoSyM)10.1007/s10270-023-01127-z23:3(765-798)Online publication date: 4-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10270-023-01127-z
Antonino PGibson-Robinson TRoscoe A(2022)Approximate verification of concurrent systems using token structures and invariantsInternational Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)10.1007/s10009-022-00650-624:4(613-633)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10009-022-00650-6
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Siphon-Based Verification of Component Compatibility
DEPCOS-RELCOMEX '09: Proceedings of the 2009 Fourth International Conference on Dependability of Computer Systems

In component-based systems, two interacting components are compatible if any sequence of services requested by one component can be provided by the other. This concept of compatibility can easily be extended to a set of interacting components. Checking ...
A three-level component model in component based software development
GPCE '12

Component-based development promotes a software development process that focuses on component reuse. How to describe a desired component before searching in the repository? How to find an existing component that fulfills the required functionalities? ...
A Component-Based Approach to Hybrid Systems Safety Verification
IFM 2016: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods - Volume 9681

We study a component-based approach to simplify the challenges of verifying large-scale hybrid systems. Component-based modeling can be used to split large models into partial models to reduce modeling complexity. Yet, verification results also need to ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Formal Aspects of Computing

Formal Aspects of Computing Volume 28, Issue 6

Nov 2016

169 pages

ISSN:0934-5043

EISSN:1433-299X

Issue’s Table of Contents

© British Computer Society 2016.

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 01 November 2016

Accepted: 24 March 2016

Received: 10 November 2014

Published in FAC Volume 28, Issue 6

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

11
Total Citations
View Citations
69
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)34
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7

Reflects downloads up to 09 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Banga ABhatia P(2024)Accuracy enhancement of Component based selection model using Hybrid Soft computing2024 Sixth International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Communication Technologies (CCICT)10.1109/CCICT62777.2024.00035(149-156)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/CCICT62777.2024.00035
Falcão FLima LSampaio AAntonino P(2023)A formal component model for UML based on CSP aiming at compositional verificationSoftware and Systems Modeling (SoSyM)10.1007/s10270-023-01127-z23:3(765-798)Online publication date: 4-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10270-023-01127-z
Antonino PGibson-Robinson TRoscoe A(2022)Approximate verification of concurrent systems using token structures and invariantsInternational Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)10.1007/s10009-022-00650-624:4(613-633)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10009-022-00650-6
Antonino PGibson-Robinson TRoscoe A(2019)Efficient Verification of Concurrent Systems Using Synchronisation Analysis and SAT/SMT SolvingACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/333514928:3(1-43)Online publication date: 18-Jul-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3335149
Araujo CCavalcante EBatista TOliveira MOquendo F(2019)A Research Landscape on Formal Verification of Software Architecture DescriptionsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2019.29538587(171752-171764)Online publication date: 2019
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2953858
Cavalcanti ASampaio AMiyazawa ARibeiro PConserva Filho MDidier ALi WTimmis J(2019)Verified simulation for roboticsScience of Computer Programming10.1016/j.scico.2019.01.004174(1-37)Online publication date: Apr-2019
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2019.01.004
Antonino PGibson-Robinson TRoscoe A(2019)Efficient verification of concurrent systems using local-analysis-based approximations and SAT solvingFormal Aspects of Computing10.1007/s00165-019-00483-231:3(375-409)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s00165-019-00483-2
Falcão FLima LSampaio A(2018)Safe and Constructive Design with UML ComponentsFormal Methods: Foundations and Applications10.1007/978-3-030-03044-5_15(234-251)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2018
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03044-5_15
Antonino PGibson-Robinson TRoscoe A(2017)The Automatic Detection of Token Structures and Invariants Using SAT CheckingProceedings, Part II, of the 23rd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems - Volume 1020610.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_15(249-265)Online publication date: 22-Apr-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_15
Antonino PGibson-Robinson TRoscoe A(2017)Checking Static Properties Using Conservative SAT Approximations for ReachabilityFormal Methods: Foundations and Applications10.1007/978-3-319-70848-5_15(233-250)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2017
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70848-5_15
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents