A Generative Programming Approach to Developing Pervasive Computing Systems

International audienceDeveloping pervasive computing applications is a difficult task because it requires to deal with a wide range of issues: heterogeneous devices, entity distribution, entity coordination, low-level hardware knowledge... Besides requiring various areas of expertise, programming such applications involves writing a lot of administrative code to glue technologies together and to interface with both hardware and software components. This paper proposes a generative programming approach to providing programming, execution and simulation support dedicated to the pervasive computing domain. This approach relies on a domain-specific language, named DiaSpec, dedicated to the description of pervasive computing systems. Our generative approach factors out features of distributed systems technologies, making DiaSpec-specified software systems portable. The DiaSpec compiler is implemented and has been used to generate dedicated programming frameworks for a variety of pervasive computing applications, including detailed ones to manage the building of an engineering school

Supporting Management lnteraction and Composition of Self-Managed Cells

Management in ubiquitous systems cannot rely on human intervention or centralised decision-making functions because systems are complex and devices are inherently mobile and cannot refer to centralised management applications for reconfiguration and adaptation directives. Management must be devolved, based on local decision-making and feedback control-loops embedded in autonomous components. Previous work has introduced a Self-Managed Cell (SMC) as an infrastructure for building ubiquitous applications. An SMC consists of a set of hardware and software components that implement a policy-driven feedback control-loop. This allows SMCs to adapt continually to changes in their environment or in their usage requirements. Typical applications include body-area networks for healthcare monitoring, and communities of unmanned autonomous vehicles (UAVs) for surveillance and reconnaissance operations. Ubiquitous applications are typically formed from multiple interacting autonomous components, which establish peer-to-peer collaborations, federate and compose into larger structures. Components must interact to distribute management tasks and to enforce communication strategies. This thesis presents an integrated framework which supports the design and the rapid establishment of policy-based SMC interactions by systematically composing simpler abstractions as building elements of a more complex collaboration. Policy-based interactions are realised – subject to an extensible set of security functions – through the exchanges of interfaces, policies and events, and our framework was designed to support the specification, instantiation and reuse of patterns of interaction that prescribe the manner in which these exchanges are achieved. We have defined a library of patterns that provide reusable abstractions for the structure, task-allocation and communication aspects of an interaction, which can be individually combined for building larger policy-based systems in a methodical manner. We have specified a formal model to ensure the rigorous verification of SMC interactions before policies are deployed in physical devices. A prototype has been implemented that demonstrates the practical feasibility of our framework in constrained resources

How To Touch a Running System

The increasing importance of distributed and decentralized software architectures entails more and more attention for adaptive software. Obtaining adaptiveness, however, is a difficult task as the software design needs to foresee and cope with a variety of situations. Using reconfiguration of components facilitates this task, as the adaptivity is conducted on an architecture level instead of directly in the code. This results in a separation of concerns; the appropriate reconfiguration can be devised on a coarse level, while the implementation of the components can remain largely unaware of reconfiguration scenarios. We study reconfiguration in component frameworks based on formal theory. We first discuss programming with components, exemplified with the development of the cmc model checker. This highly efficient model checker is made of C++ components and serves as an example for component-based software development practice in general, and also provides insights into the principles of adaptivity. However, the component model focuses on high performance and is not geared towards using the structuring principle of components for controlled reconfiguration. We thus complement this highly optimized model by a message passing-based component model which takes reconfigurability to be its central principle. Supporting reconfiguration in a framework is about alleviating the programmer from caring about the peculiarities as much as possible. We utilize the formal description of the component model to provide an algorithm for reconfiguration that retains as much flexibility as possible, while avoiding most problems that arise due to concurrency. This algorithm is embedded in a general four-stage adaptivity model inspired by physical control loops. The reconfiguration is devised to work with stateful components, retaining their data and unprocessed messages. Reconfiguration plans, which are provided with a formal semantics, form the input of the reconfiguration algorithm. We show that the algorithm achieves perceived atomicity of the reconfiguration process for an important class of plans, i.e., the whole process of reconfiguration is perceived as one atomic step, while minimizing the use of blocking of components. We illustrate the applicability of our approach to reconfiguration by providing several examples like fault-tolerance and automated resource control

Advances in component-oriented programming

WCOP 2006 is the eleventh event in a series of highly successful workshops, which took place in conjunction with every ECOOP since 1996. Component oriented programming (COP) has been described as the natural extension of object-oriented programming to the realm of independently extensible systems. Several important approaches have emerged over the recent years, including component technology standards, such as CORBA/CCM, COM/COM+, J2EE/EJB, and .NET, but also the increasing appreciation of software architecture for component-based systems, and the consequent effects on organizational processes and structures as well as the software development business as a whole. COP aims at producing software components for a component market and for late composition. Composers are third parties, possibly the end users, who are not able or willing to change components. This requires standards to allow independently created components to interoperate, and specifications that put the composer into the position to decide what can be composed under which conditions. On these grounds, WCOP\u2796 led to the following definition: "A component is a unit of composition with contractually specified interfaces and explicit context dependencies only. Components can be deployed independently and are subject to composition by third parties." After WCOP\u2796 focused on the fundamental terminology of COP, the subsequent workshops expanded into the many related facets of component software. WCOP 2006 emphasizes reasons for using components beyond reuse. While considering software components as a technical means to increase software reuse, other reasons for investing into component technology tend to be overseen. For example, components play an important role in frameworks and product-lines to enable configurability (even if no component is reused). Another role of components beyond reuse is to increase the predictability of the properties of a system. The use of components as contractually specified building blocks restricts the degrees of freedom during software development compared to classic line-by-line programming. This restriction is beneficial for the predictability of system properties. For an engineering approach to software design, it is important to understand the implications of design decisions on a system\u27s properties. Therefore, approaches to evaluate and predict properties of systems by analyzing its components and its architecture are of high interest. To strengthen the relation between architectural descriptions of systems and components, a comprehensible mapping to component-oriented middleware platforms is important. Model-driven development with its use of generators can provide a suitable link between architectural views and technical component execution platforms. WCOP 2006 accepted 13 papers, which are organised according to the program below. The organisers are looking forward to an inspiring and thought provoking workshop. The organisers thank Jens Happe and Michael Kuperberg for preparing the proceedings volume

A Design-by-Contract based Approach for Architectural Modelling and Analysis

Research on software architectures has been active since the early nineties, leading to a number of different architecture description languages (ADL). Given their importance in facilitating the communication of crucial system properties to different stakeholders and their analysis early on in the development of a system this is understandable. However, practitioners rarely use ADLs, and, instead, they insist on using the Unified Modelling Language (UML) for specifying software architectures. I attribute this to three main issues that have not been addressed altogether by the existing ADLs. Firstly, in their attempt to support formal analysis, current ADLs employ formal notations (i.e., mostly process algebras) that are rarely used among practitioners. Secondly, many ADLs focus on components in specifying software architectures, neglecting the first-class specification of complex interaction protocols as connectors. They view connectors as simple interaction links that merely identify the communicating components and their basic communication style (e.g., procedure call). So, complex interaction protocols are specified as part of components, which however reduce the re-usability of both. Lastly, there are also some ADLs that do support complex connectors. However, these include a centralised glue element in their connector structure that imposes a global ordering of actions on the interacting components. Such global constraints are not always realisable in a decentralised manner by the components that participate in these protocols. In this PhD thesis, I introduce a new architecture description language called XCD that supports the formal specification of software architectures without employing a complex formal notation and offers first-class connectors for maximising the re-use of components and protocols. Furthermore, by omitting any units for specifying global constraints (i.e., glue), the architecture specifications in XCD are guaranteed to be realisable in a decentralised manner. I show in the thesis how XCD extends Design-by-Contract (DbC) for specifying (i) protocol-independent components and (ii) complex connectors, which can impose only local constraints to guarantee their realisability. Use of DbC will hopefully make it easier for practitioners to use the language, compared to languages using process algebras. I also show the precise translation of XCD into SPIN’s formal ProMeLa language for formally verifying software architectures that (i) services offered by components are always used correctly, (ii) the component behaviours are always complete, (iii)there are no race-conditions, (iv) there is no deadlock, and (v) for components having event communications, there is no overflow of event buffers. Finally, I evaluate XCD via five well-known case studies and illustrate XCD’s enhanced modularity, expressive DbC-based notation, and guaranteed realisability for architecture specifications

Language Support for Connector Abstractions

Software connectors are increasingly recognized as an important consideration in the design and implementation of object-oriented software systems. Connectors can be used to communicate across a distributed system, coordinate the activities of several objects, or adapt one object's interface to the interface of another. Mainstream object-oriented languages, however, do not provide explicit support for connectors. As a result, connection code is intermingled with application code, making it difficult to understand, evolve, and reuse connection mechanisms