Kevin J. Sullivan, John Socha, and Mark Marchukov. Using Formal Method to Reason about Architectural Standards. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 503--513, May 1997. 15  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....corresponding architecture must be compliant with the architectural constraints imposed by the middleware. Sullivan et al. corroborate this assertion by demonstrating how a particular style that in principle seems to be easily implementable using the COM middleware is actually incompatible with it [SSM97]. We have also stated this view in discussing the importance of complementing component interoperability models with explicit architectural models [OMTR98] Our initial study of middlewareinduced styles [DR99] had the relatively narrow goal of evaluating the ability of architecture description ....

K. Sullivan, J. Socha, and M. Marchukov. Using Formal Methods to Reason about Architectural Standards. ICSE 97, May 1997.

....capability is at the heart of our approach for modeling integration frameworks. The second related area is research on the analysis of architectural standards. An example close in spirit to our work is that of Sullivan and colleagues, who used Z to model and analyze the Microsoft COM standard [SSM97]. In our own previous work we looked at the High Level Architecture (HLA) for Distributed Simulation [AGI98] HLA defines an integration standard for multi vendor distributed simulations. We demonstrated that Wright could be used to model this framework and eliminate potential flaws in the HLA ....

K.J. Sullivan, J. Socha, and M. Marchukov. Using formal methods to reason about architectural standards. In Proceedings of the

....These efforts have used Z [Spi92] as their notation, and describe the structure and semantics of a single class of system. Examples include formalization of a class of signal processing applications [DG90] event systems [GN91] the pipe filter style [AG92] and an object composition standard [SSM97] These formalizations have the advantage of applying to a class of systems rather than a single system, and thus have the potential to apply their analysis to multiple systems. They establish properties that systems in the described style share as well as precisely delineating membership in the ....

Kevin J. Sullivan, John Socha, and Mark Marchukov. Using formal methods to reason about architectural standards. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, Boston, MA, May 1997. To appear.

....cycle, offering new services which the business needs. Or, new business requirements dictate a need for new or evolved (legacy) components [10] The need to rebuild the system, or a major part of it, becomes a serious obstacle. Modern architectures, such as COM OLE and CORBA [2] 17] 18] [19] and client server architectures in general, address this issue by providing for dynamic reconfiguration of components while the system continues to run. The question arises, what rules should the reusable components in such dynamic systems obey, in order that the system continues to supply an ....

....(e.g. files, databases, protocols) Components designed for reuse in these environments follow strict guidelines as to the interfaces which they present. New components adhere to the same guidelines in order to become tolerated members of the community. In architectures such as COM OLE [18] [19], CORBA [2] 17] and Java ORB RMI [12] the usual mechanism which allows for the flexibility required by dynamic reconfiguration, is some kind of registry or object request broker. Components offering services publish their offer via the registry. Components requiring services negotiate with the ....

Sullivan K, Socha J and Marchukov M, Using Formal Methods to Reason about Architectural Standards, 19 th International Conference on Software Engineering, Boston, IEEE Computer Press, 1997

....should communicate to deliver the required results from the concerns of placing the components on the workstations or on the servers. Architectures have emerged which help developers to create these multi layered systems and include CORBA [30] Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) 39] and COM DCOM [4, 12, 37, 38]. These architectures provide the infrastructure for systems to be constructed from collections of communicating components which may be distributed around a network of machines. Building systems from components in this way provides a mechanism for the extensive reuse of existing code and for the ....

K. Sullivan, J. Socha, and M. Marchukov, "Using Formal Methods to Reason about Architectural Standards," 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, Boston, 1997.

....errors that the tool exposes. For a scope of 3, which is usually enough to catch most errors, Nitpick was limited to a state of about 5 relations; the new tool can handle 10 relations, and sometimes 20 or more, with ease. Examples include: COM [22] We took the Z specification of Sullivan et al. [35] and translated it into Alloy. The resulting model is about 150 lines long, and has 8 relations, 1 indexed relation, and 8 sets. Using AA, we were able to generate automatically the counterexamples that Sullivan and his colleagues had found by hand analysis. Intentional Naming [26] Sarfraz ....

K.J. Sullivan, J. Socha and M. Marchukov. Using Formal Methods to Reason about Architectural Standards. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE97), Boston, Massachusetts, May 1997.

....the module system theory, especially in regard to the interaction with types [17, 9, 13] With higher order components, 10 one could provide syntactic sugar for convenient aggregation and containment mechanisms. However, when such components are exported, the issues raised by Sullivan et al. [30, 29] with regard to the rules required to ensure the legality of COM components arise, and need to be addressed. This is another area of future work. A word about implementation is in order. We use two different implementation mechanisms, one for internal components, one for imported components, ....

K. J. Sullivan, J. Socha, and M. Marchukov. Using formal methods to reason about architectural standards. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 503--513. ACM Press, 1997.

....reusable parts make about the architecture of an application are identified. For a system to be implemented in a straightforward manner on top of a middleware, the corresponding architecture has to be compliant with the architectural constraints imposed by the middleware. Sullivan et al. in [23] corroborate this 13 claim by demonstrating that a style, that in principle seems to be easily implementable using the COM middleware, is actually incompatible with it. This view has been stated also in [18] in which the authors discuss the importance of complementing component interoperability ....

K. Sullivan, J. Socha, and M. Marchukov. Using Formal Methods to Reason about Architectural Standards. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, Boston, MA, 1997.

....we will see, this capability is at the heart of our approach for modeling integration standards. The second related area is research on the analysis of standards. An example close in spirit to our work is that of Sullivan and colleagues, who used Z to model and analyze the Microsoft COM standard [21]. Also closely related is work on formal definitions of architectural styles. In particular, Moriconi and colleagues describe techniques for refining between styles [15] In other work carried out by this paper s authors, we have considered how Z and Wright can be used to define styles [1, 2] The ....

K. Sullivan, J. Socha, and M. Marchukov. Using formal methods to reason about architectural standards. In Proceedings of the 1997 International Conference on Software Engineering, May 1997.

....These efforts have used Z [Spi92] as their notation, and describe the structure and semantics of a single class of system. Examples include formalization of a class of signal processing applications [DG90] event systems [GN91] the pipe filter style [AG92] and an object composition standard [SSM97] These formalizations have the advantage of applying to a class of systems rather than a single system, and thus have the potential to apply their analysis to multiple systems. They establish properties that systems in the described style share as well as precisely delineating membership in the ....

Kevin J. Sullivan, John Socha, and Mark Marchukov. Using formal methods to reason about architectural standards. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, Boston, MA, May 1997. To appear.

....for architectural description that are not addressed by looking at single systems. The second area is research on the analysis of frameworks and standards. An example close in spirit to our work is that of Sullivan and colleagues, who used Z to model and analyze the Microsoft COM standard [14]. Also closely related, is work on formal definitions of architectural styles. In particular, Moriconi and colleagues describe techniques for refining between styles [11] In other work carried out by this paper s authors, we have considered how Z can be used to define styles [1] Similarly, we ....

K. Sullivan, J. Socha, and M. Marchukov. Using formal methods to reason about architectural standards. In Proc. of the International Conf. on SW Engineering (ICSE97), May 1997.

....and use the services of each other. The COM rules do not prohibit the use of aggregation to encapsulate a system of communicating components as a new component, but, as we discovered, the conflict between aggregation and interface negotiation leads to problems that cannot be ignored. Our analysis [24] showed the infeasibility of the proposed style and persuaded Socha to replace aggregation with a simpler but less efficient compositional mechanism of containment. To make the problems clear, consider what happened when we pursued the proposed mediator architectural style. Suppose that a designer ....

Sullivan, K.J., J. Socha and M. Marchukov, "Using Formal Methods to Reason About Architectural Standards," Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 503-513, ACM press, May 1997

No context found.

Kevin J. Sullivan, John Socha, and Mark Marchukov. Using Formal Method to Reason about Architectural Standards. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 503--513, May 1997. 15

No context found.

K. J. Sullivan, J. Socha, and M. Marchukov. Using Formal Method to Reason about Architectural Standards. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 503--513, May 1997. 165

No context found.

K.J. Sullivan, J. Socha and M. Marchukov. Using Formal Methods to Reason about Architectural Standards. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE97), Boston, Massachusetts, May 1997.

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