Safe reconfiguration of Coqcots and Pycots components

Abstract

International audienceSoftware systems have to face evolutions of their running context and users. Therefore, the so-called dynamic reconfiguration has been commonly adopted for modifying some components and/or the architecture at runtime. Traditional approaches typically stop the needed components, apply the changes, and restart the components. However, this scheme is not suitable for critical systems and degrades user experience. This paper proposes to switch from the stop/restart scheme to dynamic software updating (DSU) techniques. Instead of stopping a component, its implementation is replaced by another one specifically built to apply the modifications while maintaining the best quality of service possible. The major contributions of this work are: (i) the integration of DSU techniques in a component model; (ii) a reconfiguration development process including specification, proof of correctness using Coq, and; (iii) a systematic method to produce the executable script. In this perspective, the use of DSU techniques brings higher quality of service when reconfiguring component-based software. Moreover, the formalization allows ensuring the safety and consistency of the reconfiguration process

Madeus: A Formal Deployment Model

“…To this end, we plan to transform an assembly into a global Petri net preserving its behavior, and we plan to use model checkers to produce proofs. Moreover we are currently working on an evolution of Madeus, which aims at handling reconfiguration of assemblies at run-time [14]- [16]. Fig.…”

Assisting the evolutionary development of SoS with reconfiguration patterns

“…-Initial/target architectures describe the starting and the ending points of the reconfiguration addressed by the pattern. While any ADL can be used here, graph-grammar-based, e.g., [6] or logicbased, e.g., [1,3,16] languages allow to abstract over the unchanged parts of the architecture.…”

“…-Architectural invariant and Behavioral properties explicit the conditions ensured by the pattern during reconfiguration. They can be given as an informal prose or formalized using, e.g., standard [3,16] or temporal logic [7,14].…”

“…At first glance, a statechart is used to express the reconfiguration grammar. Formal logical approaches [3,16] provide a more precise specification with unambiguous semantics.…”

Adaptive and reconfigurable software systems and architectures

“…The work of Buisson et al (2016) presents an approach for architectural reconfiguration including dynamic software updates. The approach is based on the combination of a reflective middleware as well as a proof assistant.…”