M. Shaw, R. DeLine, and G. Zelesnik. Abstractions and implementations for architectural connections. In 3rd Int'l Conf. on Configurable Distributed Systems. IEEE Press, May 1996.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....however, support a limited number of built in connector types, and developers cannot easily define connectors with custom semantics. User Defined Connectors. The work most similar to our own is a specification of how userdefined connector types can be added as plugins to the UniCon compiler [SDZ96]. UniCon connector plugins are fairly heavyweight, as connector developers must understand the details of several phases of the compiler. However, this design allows new connectors to be tightly integrated into the compiler system, permitting new kinds of architectural analysis to be defined over ....

Mary Shaw, Rob DeLine, and Gregory Zelesnik. Abstractions and Implementations for Architectural Connections. Proc. International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems, Annapolis, Maryland, May 1996.

....however, support a limited number of built in connector types, and developers cannot easily define connectors with custom semantics. User Defined Connectors. The work most similar to our own is a specification of how user defined connector types can be added as plugins to the UniCon compiler [SDZ96]. UniCon connector plugins are fairly heavyweight, as connector developers 26 must understand the details of several phases of the compiler. However, this design allows new connectors to be tightly integrated into the compiler system, permitting new kinds of architectural analysis to be defined ....

Mary Shaw, Rob DeLine, and Gregory Zelesnik. Abstractions and Implementations for Architectural Connections. Proc. International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems, Annapolis, Maryland, May 1996.

....From those connector specifications, code can be generated so that applications consist of hand written component code and generated architectural code. However, most systems only support fixed communication styles with a restricted set of connectors. This has begun to change only recently [17][1] 8] extends this approach to user programmable connectors. In the connector language FLO, connectors can be described in a lisp like syntax enriched with some special programming constructs. From those specifications, the connector compiler can generate connection code. While this approach ....

Mary Shaw, Robert DeLine, and Gregory Zelesnik. Abstractions and implementations for architectural connections. In 3rd International Conference on Configurable Distribute systems. IEEE Press, May 1996.

....They are usually used for simulation and reasoning about component architectures, and sometimes for prototyping or application design. Out of those with some form of support for connectors, the most important include ACME [9, 10] Aesop [11] C2 [14] Darwin [13] Rapide [35] MetaH [3] UniCon [28, 29], SADL [20, 19] and Wright [1] Each of the mentioned models takes slightly different approach to the concept of a connector, resulting in different connector capabilities and functionality under of particular componentmodel.However, all of themprovide means to design an application and specify ....

Shaw, M., DeLine, R., Zalesnik, G.: Abstractions and Implementations for Architectural Connections. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems, May 1996

....to change software, using a series of refactorings and similar transformations [Zim97] If this is possible, then we can derive a metaprogram instantiating the pattern. For instance, moving features is fundamental to create new levels of indirection widely used in patterns. Architectural systems [SDZ95] allow to exchange connectors representing a communication association. Similarly, composition languages [NM95] focus on the wiring of software components. Metaprograms can easily exchange connectors or compose programs avoiding special languages. Generic programming allows to bind parameters ....

Mary Shaw, Robert DeLine, and Gregory Zelinski. Abstraction and Implementation for Architectural Connections. Technical report, CMU, 1995.

....the wiring of components and connectors into an architecture. It can contain connections that associate type compatible connectors and ports, and constraints that are used to relate named objects or to place semantic restrictions on how they can be related in an architecture. 2.2. 9 UniCon UniCon [55, 56] is an architecture description language devised at the Carnegie Mellon University by Shaw et al. It is based on two main constructs: a system architecture is described as a set of typed components that interact via connectors. UniCon s components roughly correspond to compilation units of ....

Shaw, M., DeLine, R., Zelesnik, G.: Abstractions and Implementations for Architectural Connections. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems, May #996.

....to change software, using a series of refactorings and similar transformations [Zim97] If this is possible, then wecan derive a metaprogram instantiating the pattern. For instance, moving features is fundamental to create new levels of indirection widely used in patterns. Architectural systems [SDZ95] allow to exchange connectors representing a communication association. Similarly, composition languages [NM95] focus on the wiring of software components. Metaprograms can easily exchange connectors or compose programs avoiding special languages. Generic programming allows to bind parameters ....

Mary Shaw, Robert DeLine, and Gregory Zelinski. Abstraction and Implementation for Architectural Connections. Technical report, CMU, 1995.

....1 Motivation The goal of software composition is to find a good combination of components that leads to a software system that responds to client specific requirements. Earlier research in the domain of composition has addressed the issue within the domain of software architectures, ADL s (e.g. [SDZ96], MT00] and composition languages [SN99] In these cases, deciding a good component combination is done statically and relies on the application programmer. An important research issue is to automate this configuration process. It is an important challenge in current computer systems that they ....

Mary Shaw, Robert DeLine, Gregory Zelesnik, Abstractions and Implementations for Architectural Connections, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems, Annapolis, Maryland, 1996

....will automatically break the cascaded calls into appropriate smaller cascades. This situation, in which generated code is no worse, and possibly better, than hand written code, is typical of certain generation paradigms. For example, generators for the architecture definition language UniCon [12] produce code that is essentially identical to what would have been generated by hand, and hence is no worse than hand written code. Like Persephone, UniCon encapsulates knowledge about the generated code that allows it, in some circumstances, to produce code that is better than what could ....

M. Shaw, R. DeLine, and G. Zelesnik. Abstractions and implementations for architectural connections. In Third International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems, May 1996. 10

....in an architectural model, while preserving correct communications. We plan to address this area further in future work. Beyond the question of number, connections take on importance for modeling reasons. Specifically, we believe that connections should be represented as first class entities [17, 20 21, 23]. Many domains, including networking, have numerous, well known connection classes. Such domain specific knowledge can be encoded as taxonomies of connection types, provided that connections can be represented as firstclass entities within the ADL. For example, we found the need to specify classes ....

Shaw, M., R. DeLine, and G. Zelesnik, "Abstractions and Implementations for Architectural Connections," Proc. Third Int'l Conf. Configurable Distributed Systems, May 1996.

....1 Motivation The goal of software composition is to find a good combination of components that leads to a software system that responds to client specific requirements. Earlier research in the domain of composition has addressed the issue within the domain of software architectures, ADL s [SDZ96] and composition languages [SN99] In these cases, deciding a good component combination is done statically and relies on the application programmer. An important research issue is to automate this configuration process. Another important challenge in current computer systems is that they must be ....

Mary Shaw, Robert DeLine, Gregory Zelesnik, Abstractions and Implementations for Architectural Connections, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems, Annapolis, Maryland, 1996,

....packagers is often more plausible than reusing a particular packager with different wares. Software generation addresses both the formulaic and situated nature of packager source code. Given a highlevel description of a component s packaging in the architecture description language UniCon [13], a Flexible Packaging tool, called a packager maker, generates the packager s source code. Examples of such packaging descriptions were shown previously in Figures 2(b) and 2(c) Consider the description of the filter packaging shown in Figure 2(c) It describes the intended packaging in ....

....begin with the letters NP; the dll must appear in a particular directory. Of these, the first is about the content of the component s source code; the rest, about its construction. Here, too, software generation is helpful. The Flexible Packaging toolset comes with a set of tools, called experts [13]. For a given component packaging, a packaging expert produces construction instructions (in the form of a Makefile) that perform the necessary steps to process the component s source code. In summary, there are three forms in which a packaging specialist can capture his knowledge. If the ....

Mary Shaw, Robert DeLine, and Gregory Zelesnik. "Abstractions and implementations for architectural connections." In Proc. Conf. on Configurable Distributed Systems, 1996. Microsoft, ActiveX, and Windows nt are trademarks of the Microsoft Corporation.

....of a component from the interconnection aspects in order to create an application. The generic designation is used to specify that such a connector is not supposed to bind components with specific, previously defined characteristics (as do the connectors of Software Architecture works [19, 7, 1]) but instead, it looks for any component that is able to provide the required service. Exploring this approach, an application can be configured using a set of services without being aware of the specific components that offer these services. The components will be selected onthe fly by the ....

M. Shaw, R. DeLine, and G. Zelesnik. Abstractions and implementations for architectural connections. In Third International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems, pages 2--10, Annapolis, Maryland, May 6-8 1996.

....languages have to be learned, and non standard environments have to be managed by programmers. Additionally, connectors in software architecture systems are still too inflexible. Most systems provide only a fixed set of connectors, or connectors must be programmed with non standard mechanisms [SDZ96] In addition, the weaving capabilities of connectors are up to now rather limited or non existent. Table 1 summarizes how the different methods for component composition fulfill the requirements stated in section 1. Weaving capabilities Architectural support standards Copy paste 1 ....

Mary Shaw, Robert DeLine, and Gregory Zelesnik. Abstractions and implementations for architectural connections. In 3rd International Conference on Configurable Distribute systems. IEEE Press, May 1996.

....and guidance is always needed. In addition, most of the research on software architecture has focused on the forward engineering side of software development, and little work is to be found on how architectural elements and patterns of use generally appear in the source code of existing systems [27]. It is worth noting here that the term architecture is sometimes used by the reverse engineering community to denote information traditionally extracted from source code such as definition use graphs and subsystem structures. In our work we adopt a broader definition of architecture that ....

M. Shaw, R. DeLine, and G. Zelesnik. Abstractions and Implementations for Architectural Connections. In Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Config. Dist. Syst., pages 2--10. IEEE, May 1996.

....of programming errors related to dependence rei cation, it would be necessary to develop special languages, compilers, and runtime systems to guarantee the safety of component execution and recon guration. A cleaner solution would be to use existing re ective languages and environments. Iguana [3], for example, is an extension of C that rei es several features of this language, allowing dynamic modi cation of their implementations. In these languages, it would be possible to instrument method invocation to take care of dependence maintenance. However, a major goal of our research is ....

....Operating Systems, pages 10 14, Lisbon, June 1999. 2] Fabio Kon and Roy H. Campbell. On the Role of Inter Component Dependence in Supporting Automatic Recon guration. Technical Report UIUCDCS R 98 2080, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, December 1998. [3] Brendan Gowing and Vinny Cahill. Meta Object Protocols for C : The Iguana Approach. In Proceedings of Re ection 96, pages 137 152, San Francisco, USA, April 1996. 4] Michi Henning. Binding, Migration, and Scalability in CORBA. Communications of the ACM, 41(10) October 1998. 5] OMG. ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Mary Shaw, R. DeLine, and G. Zelesnik. Abstractions and Implementations for Architectural Connections. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Congurable Distributed Systems (CDS'96), Annapolis, Maryland, USA, May 1996.

.... For example, a Unix pipe connector could be specified in Darwin as: component UnixPipe provide source port line ; require sink port line ; require error port line ; bind source sink; UniCon is an architecture description language developed at Carnegie Mellon University [MS95] MS96] In UniCon an interface consists of the component s type, specific properties that specialise the type, and a list of players (methods) through which the component can interact with the rest of the system. Players are also typed entities, and may declare properties which further specify the ....

M. Shaw et al, "Abstractions and Implementations for Architectural Connections", Proceedings of IEEE 3 rd International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems, May 1996, pp. 2-10.

.... to domain independent design idioms[Sha89] Recently, research in software architecture has focused on identifying and cataloging reusable design models and rules, including object oriented patterns[GHJV94] frameworks[Deu89] architectural styles[PW92, GAO94] and common software connectors[SDZ96] Unfortunately, system design and evolution improvements are often vitiated by the tendency of implementations to diverge from their intended design models. This presents strong argument for supplementing the use of codified design principles with tools that help ensure that the actual ....

....and Mary Shaw[Sha95] make good arguments why elevating the status of software relations to first class can be valuable. Catalogues of widely used software connectors have begun to emerge. Examples include Pipes, ProcedureCalls, RemoteProcedureCalls, DataAccess, RTScheduler, and PLBundler[GS95, SDZ96] 2.2 Significance of Conformance to Architectural Design This thesis addresses the problem of managing software system consistency with its design models including the reusable architectural abstractions discussed above. To emphasize the critical need for architecture consistency review ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Mary Shaw, Robert DeLine, and Gregory Zelesnik. Abstractions and Implementations for Architectural Connections. In Third International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems (To Appear), 1996.

....domain and as general purpose architecture modeling languages. In this paper, we specifically consider those languages most commonly referred to as ADLs: Aesop [14] 12] ArTek [69] C2 [39] 42] Darwin [35] 36] LILEANNA [70] MetaH [6] 72] Rapide [31] 32] SADL [46] 47] UniCon [62] [63], Weaves [20] 21] and Wright [2] 4] 1 Recently, initial work has been done on an architecture interchange language, ACME [15] which is intended to support mapping of architectural specifications from one ADL to another, and hence enable integration of support tools across ADLs. Although, ....

M. Shaw, R. DeLine, and G. Zelesnik. "Abstractions and Implementations for Architectural Connections." In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems, May 1996.

....makes them harder to adapt and difficult to reuse. Helm et al. s work emphasizes genericity of relationships, but does not provide a medium to implement them. Their work is intended for specification, not implementation. Software architecture specification methods, such as DARWIN [17] and UNICON [22], employ architectural connections to connect components and mediate interactions. The connections first class, high level abstractions regulate data flow, data access, and resource allocation within a program. The specification methods employ portlike structures and advanced compilers to ....

SHAW, M., DELINE, R., AND ZELESNIK, G. Abstractions and Implementations for Architectural Connections. In Third International Conferenceon ConfigurableDistributed Systems (May 1996).

....the programmer. FarGo, on the other hand, introduces the notion of references that may occupy sophisticated relocation semantics and are manipulated using a reflective mechanism. From a software architecture perspective, these references function as architectural connectors (as proposed in UniCon [20]) which explicitly specify the architectural glue between components with respect to their (re)location. An additional dimension of support for dynamic layout programming is enabled with the monitoring information supplied by the Core. Of all the above systems, only Sumatra employs such support, ....

M. Shaw, R. DeLine, and G. Zelesnik. Abstractions and implementations for architectural connections. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems, May 1996.

No context found.

M. Shaw, R. DeLine, and G. Zelesnik. Abstractions and implementations for architectural connections. In 3rd Int'l Conf. on Configurable Distributed Systems. IEEE Press, May 1996.

No context found.

Mary Shaw et al, "Abstractions and Implementations for Architectural Connections", 1996

No context found.

Mary Shaw, Robert DeLine, Gregory Zelesnik, Abstractions and Implementations for Architectural Connections, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems, Annapolis, Maryland, 1996,

No context found.

Shaw M, DeLine R and Zelesnik G, Abstractions and Implementations for architectural connections, unpublished manuscript, March 1995.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC