Conditions for Compatibility of Components

Beek, Maurice H. ter; Carmona, Josep; Kleijn, Jetty

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2_55

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 39 publications

(66 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The receptiveness requirement for q generated by st is the conjunction 6 { rcp(J , a)@q | a ∈ Σ com , rcp(J , a)@q is valid for st(a) } A responsiveness requirement rsp(J , a)@q is valid for st(a) if i 1 ≤ |J | ≤ i 2 , o 1 = 0 and, for each j ∈ J , q(j) is a state at which only input actions are enabled. 7 The responsiveness requirement for q generated by st is the disjunction 8 { rsp(J , a)@q | a ∈ Σ com , rsp(J , a)@q is valid for st(a) } In summary, each synchronisation type specification st for a system S of components determines a synchronisation policy, i.e. an ETA E(st), and generates at the same time communication requirements.…”

Section: Definition 8 (Compliance)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both approaches support compatibility for synchronous communication. A first exploration on how to generalise compatibility notions to arbitrary synchronisation policies was performed in [7] in the framework of team automata.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conditions for safe communication in terms of receptiveness and responsiveness were considered in [2,11,17,21] for (web) services and in [6,7,9,15] for team automata. Output actions not accepted as input by some component are considered as message loss or as unspecified receptions [12,21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Output actions not accepted as input by some component are considered as message loss or as unspecified receptions [12,21]. If any (autonomously chosen) output action is accepted, we call this receptiveness [7]. Orthogonally, we recognise indefinite waiting for input to be received in the form of an appropriate output action provided by another component [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We use a conjunction here since outputs are autonomously decided by components 7. Otherwise the component has already a receptiveness requirement for an output 8.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Compositionality of Safe Communication in Systems of Team Automata

Beek

Hennicker

Kleijn

2020

Theoretical Aspects of Computing – ICTAC 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study guarantees for safe communication in systems of systems composed of reactive components that communicate through synchronised execution of common actions. Systems are modelled as (extended) team automata, in which, in principle, any number of component automata can participate in the execution of a communicating action, either as a sender or as a receiver. We extend team automata with synchronisation type specifications, which determine specific synchronisation policies fine-tuned for particular application domains. On the other hand, synchronisation type specifications generate communication requirements for receptiveness and responsiveness. We propose a new, liberal version of requirement satisfaction which allows teams to execute arbitrary intermediate actions before being ready for the required communication, which is important in practice. Then we turn to the composition of systems and show that composition behaves well with respect to synchronisation type specifications. As a central result, we investigate criteria that ensure the preservation of local communication properties when (extended) team automata are composed. This is particularly challenging in the context of weak requirement satisfaction. This apparently simple generalisation has a significant consequence: among the 'arbitrary other actions' there may be output or input actions open to the environment. This is a potentially dangerous situation, since in this case local communication properties can be violated after composition with other teams. This leads us to the third, perhaps most important, contribution of the current paper. We consider composition of systems and of teams. First, we show that composition behaves well with synchronisation types (Theorem 1). Then we investigate conditions under which communication properties are preserved by ETA composition. The principle idea is that for this it should be sufficient to consider interface actions and to check (global) compliance conditions for them. We formulate appropriate conditions, first for the case of (strong) receptiveness and responsiveness (Theorem 2) and then for the weak variant of the two, solving the problem sketched above (Theorem 3). An intuitive running example guides the reader through the paper. Outline After introducing extended team automata (ETA) in Section 2, we consider synchronisation type specifications and ETA determined by them in Section 3. (Weak) compliance of ETA with communication requirements and safe communication are treated in Section 4. In Section 5, we define the composition of systems and of teams, and we show that this works well with synchronisation type specifications. In Section 6, we provide our main compositionality results. Full proofs and some insightful counterexamples of the results presented in the latter two sections can be found in Appendices A and B. After discussing related work in Section 7, we conclude the paper in Section 8.

show abstract

Section: Definition 8 (Compliance)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We use a conjunction here since outputs are autonomously decided by components 7. Otherwise the component has already a receptiveness requirement for an output 8.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations