Towards formalising installation and reconfiguration tasks of AADL architecture

Software applications are becoming more and more distributed rendering their deployment which consists essentially of the installation and dynamic reconfiguration activities crucial and important phase in software development lifecycle. Although, several approaches for software deployment exist in the literature, most of them deal with specific technologies and offer limited models. In this paper, we focus on the formalisation of the most important deployment tasks of software systems using bigraphical reactive systems BRS. We aim to give a complete semantic framework for AADL specifications, including the installation of software application on execution platform and its dynamic reconfiguration. AADL offers necessary tools to define both software and execution platform characteristics in the same description. For this purpose, our model allows the specification of software architecture configuration by a suitable pair of bigraphs, the first one models software components and their interconnections, and the second one models the execution platform. Thus, software entities installation on hardware ones is achieved by composing the two designed bigraphs. Besides, reconfiguration activity is formalised in terms of BRS reactions rules.

[1]  Richard S. Hall,et al.  A Characterization Framework for Software Deployment Technologies , 1998 .

[2]  Scott F. Smith,et al.  A formal framework for component deployment , 2006, OOPSLA '06.

[3]  Petr Hnetynka,et al.  SOFA 2.0: Balancing Advanced Features in a Hierarchical Component Model , 2006, Fourth International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications (SERA'06).

[4]  Calton Pu,et al.  Comparison of Approaches to Service Deployment , 2005, 25th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS'05).

[5]  Sam Malek,et al.  Software deployment architecture and quality-of-service in pervasive environments , 2007, ESSPE '07.

[6]  Zhichang Qi,et al.  An Approach based on Bigraphical Reactive Systems to Check Architectural Instance Conforming to its Style , 2007, First Joint IEEE/IFIP Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering (TASE '07).

[7]  Robin Milner,et al.  Bigraphs and Their Algebra , 2008, LIX.

[8]  Laurent Pautet,et al.  Ocarina : An Environment for AADL Models Analysis and Automatic Code Generation for High Integrity Applications , 2009, Ada-Europe.

[9]  Søren Debois,et al.  A model checker for Bigraphs , 2012, SAC '12.

[10]  Vladimiro Sassone,et al.  BiLog: Spatial Logics for Bigraphs , 2006 .

[11]  Roberto Bruni,et al.  Style-Based Architectural Reconfigurations , 2008, Bull. EATCS.

[12]  David Garlan,et al.  Specifying and Analyzing Dynamic Software Architectures , 1998, FASE.

[13]  David Cordes,et al.  A conceptual foundation for component-based software deployment , 2001, J. Syst. Softw..

[14]  Robin Milner,et al.  Bigraphs and mobile processes (revised): Technical report 580 , 2004 .

[15]  Bixin Li,et al.  A classification and comparison of model checking software architecture techniques , 2010, J. Syst. Softw..

[16]  Abbas Heydarnoori,et al.  Deploying Component–Based Applications: Tools and Techniques , 2008 .

[17]  Daniel Le Métayer.  Describing Software Architecture Styles Using Graph Grammars , 1998, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[18]  Richard N. Taylor,et al.  A Classification and Comparison Framework for Software Architecture Description Languages , 2000, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[19]  Nadira Benlahrache,et al.  Model Checking BRS based AADL Specification , 2012 .

[20]  Vladimiro Sassone,et al.  Spatial Logics for Bigraphs , 2005, ICALP.

[21]  Zhichang Qi,et al.  Towards a Formal Model for Reconfigurable Software Architectures by Bigraphs , 2008, Seventh Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA 2008).