A Reflective Approach for Supporting the Dynamic Evolution of Component Types

Costa-Soria, Cristóbal; Hervás-Muñoz, David; Pérez, Jennifer; Carsí, José A.

doi:10.1109/iceccs.2009.35

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the last few years a plethora of frameworks supporting self-evolution have been developed - [5,8,16,22,25,28,31,35,42,46] just to cite a few of them. Even if apparently all these frameworks differ, they share reflective nature, the use of design information (meta-models, software architectures, Petri nets, UML diagrams and so on) to plan the evolution and a control loop (monitor-plan-execute) that follows the vision given in [44] and [30].…”

Section: Discussion Related Work and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several reflective frameworks [8,16,22,25,31,36,46] supporting self-evolution and models@runtime have been developed over the last 15 years. They differ on the realization and in what they can do as we will show in the next section but they share a reflective nature, the use of design information (meta-models, software architectures, UML diagrams and so on) to plan the evolution and a control loop (monitor-plan-execute) that follows the vision given in [44] and [30].…”

Section: Self-evolving Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several other self-configuring approaches (such as TranSAT [3,4], RSA [39], PRISMA [24,25], ArchStudio [59], K-Components Architecture [31,32] and Dellarocas et al [28]) reflectively exploit software architecture to plan and realize the artifact reconfiguration but since to report their analysis will not add much more to the discussion and due to space limitation we are not describing them all in detail.…”

Section: Self-configuring: Reflecting On the Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evolution as ≪Reflections on the Design≫

Cazzola

2014

Models@run.time

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. No system escapes from the need of evolving either to fix bugs, to be reconfigured or to add new features. To evolve becomes particularly problematic when the system to evolve cannot be stopped.Traditionally the evolution of a continuously running system is tackled on by calculating all the possible evolutions in advance and coding them in the artifact itself. This approach gives origin to the code pollution phenomenon where the code is polluted by code that could never be applied. The approach has the following defects: i) code bloating, ii) it is impossible to predict any possible change and iii) the code becomes hard to read and maintain.Computational reflection by definition allows an artifact to introspect and to intercede on its own structure and behavior endowing, therefore, a reflective artifact with (potentially) the ability of self-evolving. Furthermore, to deal with the evolution as a nonfunctional concern can limit the code pollution phenomenon.To bring the design information (model and/or architecture) at runtime provides the artifact with a basic knowledge about itself to reflect on when a change is necessary and on how to deploy it. The availability of such a knowledge at run-time enables the designer of postponing the planning and the coding of the evolution to when and only when really necessary. Reflection permits to separate the evolution from the artifact and the design information allows a (semi-)automatic planning of how the artifact should evolve when necessary.In this contribution, we overview the role that reflection and design information have in the development of self-evolving artifacts. Moreover, we summarize the lesson learned as a high-level reflective architecture to support dynamic self-evolution in various contexts and we show how some of the existing frameworks adhere to such an architecture and how the kind of evolution affects their structure.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Related Work and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Self-evolving Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Self-configuring: Reflecting On the Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evolution as ≪Reflections on the Design≫

Cazzola

2014

Models@run.time

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are already a number of researches on dynamic evolution of component-based system and the protocol of component behavior. The reflection in [3] can provide support for the dynamic evolution of component type. Naming service, reflection and dynamic adaptation mechanism of middleware also allow support for the dynamic replacement and upgrade of running component.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 97%

Behavior Consistency Verification for Evolution of Aspectual Component-based Software

Zhou¹,

Chen²,

Hu³

2013

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Systems Engineering and Modeling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Aspect-Oriented Software Architecture (AOA) is a high-level abstraction and integration blueprint of aspectual component-based software. A semantic model of aspectual component-based software is proposed to provide behavior description and semantic foundation for the consistency verification of software architecture dynamic evolution. By using the semantic model of Pi-calculus, a set of the consistency verification methods of dynamic evolution from multiple aspects are introduced. Finally, a case study shows the effect of these methods. IntroductionIn the open and dynamic environment of Internet, the modification of distributed architectural objects is directly reflected in the evolution of system. The software dynamic evolution helps to improve system's adaptability and flexibility, to extend the lifetime of system and to improve the expansibility of system [1]. Aspect-oriented method is unifying the decentralized public code crosscutting in other function modules to form aspect to achieve the absolute separation of system concerns .At the meantime, using weaving mechanism can weave aspects into the component system according to the need, and form aspectual component-based system [2]. The dynamic evolution of aspectual component-based system is a complicated process. Interface behavior incompatibility, the change of unobservable internal behavior and replacing, adding or deleting component may result in system's function behaviors straying from the original system. For aspectual component, the special consideration is whether the semantic of pointcuts is changed and resulting in the change of system behavior. In order to solve the above problems in the case of non-stop and confirm whether the evolution is reasonable and correct, we verify the behavior consistency of aspectual component dynamic evolution using Pi-calculus and Delta analysis.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the meta-level 8 provides the reflective capability. It defines a computational system that reasons about and acts upon another computational system, i.e.…”

Section: Computational Reflectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Evolution and Reconfiguration of Software Architectures Through Aspects

Cubel

Benedí

Costa-Soria

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Change is an intrinsic property of software. A software system, during its lifetime, may require several updates, improvements, or new features. If these change requirements are not addressed, the risk of becoming a useless system increases. In fact, this is a challenging issue of safety-and mission-critical software systems, which cannot be stopped to perform maintenance or evolution operations due to their continuous operation. To reduce the aging of these critical systems, they must be provided with mechanisms enabling their dynamic evolution, i.e. the support of changes on their structure and behaviour while they remain in operation.This thesis is concerned with the design of a framework to build architecturebased, dynamically evolvable, software systems. The fact that this framework is a software architecture based approach provides the following advantages: (i) it offers a high-level of abstraction for describing dynamic changes; (ii) it allows varying the level of system description; and (iii) it advantages from the existing support for system modelling, code-generation, and formal analysis provided by architecture description languages.The framework presented in this thesis, called Dynamic PRISMA, is characterized by the combination of two levels of dynamism: Dynamic Reconfiguration, which addresses changes at the configuration level (i.e. the architectural configuration), and Dynamic Type Evolution, which addresses changes at the type-level (i.e. the specification of architectural types and instances). This combination is one of the major contributions of this thesis: thus a system is not only able to reconfigure at runtime the building blocks it is composed of (i.e. architectural types), but also to redefine these building blocks (or introduce new ones) at runtime.Another contribution of the thesis is the identification of the concerns related to dynamic evolution and their integration in the framework through aspects. This improves the separation of concerns and allows us to change reconfiguration specifications, evolution mechanisms, or the business logic independently of each other.A third contribution of this thesis is how this dynamism is supported: reconfiguration through autonomic capabilities, which provides proactivity according to either internal or external stimuli; and type evolution through asynchronous reflection, which enables the modification of a type specification and the transformation of their instances at different rates (i.e. when they are ready for evolution). Specifically, the asynchronous evolution vi semantics is precisely described by means of graph transformations. This formalism has been chosen because it naturally models both the system architecture and its asynchronous evolution.The work presented in this thesis is illustrated through a case study from the robotics domain; an area which could potentially benefit from the results of this thesis. KEYWORDSsoftware architectures, dynamic evolution, dynamic reconfiguration, dynamic type evolution, dynamic instance evol...

show abstract

A Reflective Approach for Supporting the Dynamic Evolution of Component Types

Abstract: Abstract

Cited by 10 publications

References 33 publications

Evolution as ≪Reflections on the Design≫

Evolution as ≪Reflections on the Design≫

Behavior Consistency Verification for Evolution of Aspectual Component-based Software

Dynamic Evolution and Reconfiguration of Software Architectures Through Aspects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About