CoCoME in SOFA

Bureš, Tomáš; Decky, Martin; Hnětynka, Petr; Kofroň, Jan; Parízek, Pavel; Plášil, František; Poch, Tomáš; Šerý, Ondřej; Tůma, Petr

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85289-6_15

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, a protocol in UML-RT does not include a PSM; as in UML 2, PSMs are a property of Ports, not their type. 8. Code and case studies available at sourceforge.net/projects/rtccc.…”

Section: Verification Harnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the fundamental significance of the interface notion, it is not surprising that many different research communities have tried to avail themselves of the benefits of behavioral interface specifications, including systems (e.g., [2]), programming languages (e.g., [3], [4], [5]), type theory (e.g., [6]), software architecture and component-based systems (e.g., [7], [8], [9]), multi-agent systems (MAS) (e.g., [10]), and service-oriented architecture and web services (e.g., [11]). In most of these approaches, behavioral constraints are expressed using finite state machines or related formalisms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2. In the context of specifying and analyzing component-based systems and software architectures, the use of, for example, state machines (e.g., [4], [32]), sequence diagrams (e.g., [33]), and process algebra specifications (e.g., [34], [35], [8], [36]) has been suggested to enrich interface specifications. Many of these works have other goals and do not consider protocol conformance in the sense of Definition 5 (e.g., [34], [4], [32], [33]).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Verifying Protocol Conformance Using Software Model Checking for the Model-Driven Development of Embedded Systems

Moffett¹,

Dingel

Beaulieu

2013

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To facilitate modular development, the use of state machines has been proposed to specify the protocol (i.e., the sequence of messages) that each port of a component can engage in. The protocol conformance checking problem consists of determining whether the actual behavior of a component conforms to the protocol specifications on its ports. In this paper, we consider this problem in the context of the model-driven development (MDD) of embedded systems based on UML 2, in which UML 2 state machines are used to specify component behavior. We provide a definition of conformance which slightly extends those found in the literature and reduce the conformance check to a state space exploration. We describe a tool implementing the approach using the Java PathFinder software model checker and the MDD tool IBM Rational RoseRT, discuss its application to three case studies, and show how the tool repeatedly allowed us to find unexpected conformance errors with encouraging performance. We conclude that the approach is promising for supporting the modular development of embedded components in the context of industrial applications of MDD.Index Terms-Component-based software engineering, behavioral interface specifications, software modeling, model-driven development, formal specification and verification, software model checking

show abstract

“…Consequently, a protocol in UML-RT does not include a PSM; as in UML 2, PSMs are a property of Ports, not their type. 8. Code and case studies available at sourceforge.net/projects/rtccc.…”

Section: Verification Harnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Verifying Protocol Conformance Using Software Model Checking for the Model-Driven Development of Embedded Systems

Moffett¹,

Dingel

Beaulieu

2013

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several methods (e.g. UML, SOFA [3], Palladio [2]) allow to model a CBS including static structure, dynamic behaviour, and deployment to resources. Such models are annotated with estimated or measured quality annotations (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a generic quality optimisation framework for component-based system models

Koziolek

Reussner

2011

Proceedings of the 14th International ACM Sigsoft Symposium on Component Based Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Designing component-based systems (CBS) that exhibit a good trade-off between multiple quality criteria is hard. Even after functional design, many remaining degrees of freedom of different types (e.g. component deployment, component selection, server configuration) in the CBS span a large, discontinuous design space. Automated approaches have been proposed to optimise CBS models, but they only consider a limited set of degrees of freedom, e.g. they only optimise the selection of components without considering the deployment, or vice versa. We propose a flexible and extensible formulation of the design space for optimising any CBS model for a number of quality properties and an arbitrary number of degrees of freedom. With this design space formulation, a generic quality optimisation framework that is independent of the used CBS metamodel can apply multi-objective metaheuristic optimisation such as evolutionary algorithms.

show abstract

“…Moreover, since component models frequently share similar core, a natural desire is to achieve interoperability between the models to make component reuse easier and allow for development and management of heterogeneous applications. Obviously, with an ad hoc developed infrastructure, achieving interoperability was quite difficult (as we experienced when converting SOFA components into Fractal components in the CoCoME application 7, 8).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using meta‐modeling in design and implementation of component‐based systems: the SOFA case study

Hnětynka

Plášil

2010

Softw Pract Exp

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To allow efficient and user‐friendly development of a component‐based application, component systems have to provide a rather complex development infrastructure, including a tool for component composition, component repository, and a run‐time infrastructure. In this paper, we present and evaluate benefits of using meta‐modeling during the process of defining a component system and also during creation of the development and run‐time infrastructures. Most of the presented arguments are based on a broad practical experience with designing the component systems SOFA and SOFA 2; the former designed in a classical ad hoc ‘manual’ way, whereas the latter with the help of meta‐modeling. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

CoCoME in SOFA

Cited by 11 publications

References 15 publications

Verifying Protocol Conformance Using Software Model Checking for the Model-Driven Development of Embedded Systems

Verifying Protocol Conformance Using Software Model Checking for the Model-Driven Development of Embedded Systems

Towards a generic quality optimisation framework for component-based system models

Using meta‐modeling in design and implementation of component‐based systems: the SOFA case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About