Static checking of system behaviors using derived component assumptions

Inverardi, Paola; Wolf, Alexander L.; Yankelevich, Daniel

doi:10.1145/352591.352593

Cited by 71 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared to related works [4,13], our approach works at the abstract specification level, it offers a more flexible formalism than the ones proposed by [21,4] for the description of interacting services. We adopt a pairwise verification approach that avoids state explosion like in [4].…”

Section: Discussion and Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Checking Component Composability

Attiogbé

André

Ardourel

2006

Software Composition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Component-Based Software Engineering (CBSE) is one of the approaches to master the development of large scale software. In this setting, the verification concern is still a challenge. The current work addresses the composability of components and their services. A component model (Kmelia) is introduced; an associated formalism, simple but expressive is introduced; it describes the services as extended LTSs and their structuring as components. The composability of components is defined on the basis of the composability of services. To ensure the correctness of component composition, we check that an assembly is possible via the checking of the composability of the linked services, and their behavioural compatibility. In order to mechanize our approach, the services and the components are translated into the Lotos formalism. Finally the Lotos CADP toolbox is used to perform experiments.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Checking Component Composability

Attiogbé

André

Ardourel

2006

Software Composition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, such languages are equipped with ad-hoc analysis techniques (see, e.g., [4,30,15,1]) mostly based on behavioral equivalences [27], which are useful for detecting coordination mismatches that may arise when assembling together components that are correct if taken in isolation. Moreover, they can generate diagnostic information for pinpointing components responsible for mismatches.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-synchronous Communications in Process Algebraic Architectural Description Languages

Bernardo

Bontà

2008

Software Architecture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Architectural description languages are a useful tool for modeling complex software systems at a high level of abstraction. If based on formal methods, they can also serve for enabling the early verification of various properties such as component coordination and for guiding the synthesis of code correct by construction. This is the case with process algebraic architectural description languages, which are process calculi enhanced with the main architectural concepts. However, the techniques with which those languages have been equipped are mainly conceived to work with synchronous communications only. The objective of this paper is threefold. On the modeling side, we show how to enhance the expressiveness of a typical process algebraic architectural description language by including the capability of representing nonsynchronous communications in such a way that the usability of the original language is preserved. On the verification side, we show how to modify techniques for analyzing the absence of coordination mismatches like the compatibility check for acyclic topologies and the interoperability check for cyclic topologies in such a way that those checks are valid also for nonsynchronous communications. On the implementation side, we show how to generate multithreaded object-oriented software in the presence of synchronous and nonsynchronous communications in such a way that the properties proved at the architectural level are preserved at the code level.

show abstract

“…They rather focus on checking the validity of a previously built architecture [6,[9][10][11][12]. The consistency check techniques cannot be used in an iterative building process because of the combinatorial complexity [13]. To guide the architect, we propose an efficient approach to automatically build potentially valid architectures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automating the Building of Software Component Architectures

Desnos

Vauttier

Urtado

et al. 2006

Software Architecture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Assembling software components into an architecture is a difficult task because of its combinatorial complexity. There is thus a need for automating this building process, either to assist architects at design time or to manage the self-assembly of components at runtime. This paper proposes an automatic architecture building process that uses ports, and more precisely composite ports, to manage the connection of components. Our solution extends the Fractal component model. It has been implemented and experiments have been run to verify its good time performance, thanks to several optimization heuristics and strategies.

show abstract

Static checking of system behaviors using derived component assumptions

Cited by 71 publications

References 26 publications

Checking Component Composability

Checking Component Composability

Non-synchronous Communications in Process Algebraic Architectural Description Languages

Automating the Building of Software Component Architectures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About