System evolution by migration coordination

S. Andova, L.P.J. Groenewegen, E.P. Vink, de

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionAcademic

46 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Collaborations between components can bemodeled in the coordination language Paradigm[3]. A collaboration solution is specified by loosely coupling component dynamics to a protocol via their roles. Not only regular, foreseen collaboration can be specified, originally unforeseen collaboration can be modeled too [4]. To explain how, we first look very briefly at Paradigm’s regular coordination specification. Component dynamics are expressed by state-transition diagrams (STDs), see Figure 1(a) for a mock-up STD MU in UML style. MU contributes to a collaboration via a role MU(R). Figure 1(b) specifies MU(R) through a different STD, whose states are so-called phases of MU: temporarily valid, dynamic constraints imposed on MU. The figure mentions four such phases, Clock, Anti, Inter and Small. Figure 1(c) couplesMU and MU(R). It specifies each phase as part of MU, additionally decorated with one or more polygons grouping some states of a phase. Polygons visualize so-called traps: a trap, once entered, cannot be left as long as the phase remains the valid constraint. A trap having been entered, serves as a guard for a phase change. Therefore, traps label transitions in a role STD, cf. Figure 1(b). Single steps from different roles, are synchronized into one protocol step. A protocol step can be coupled to one detailed step of a so-called manager component, driving the protocol. Meanwhile, local variables can be updated. It is through a consistency rule, Paradigm specifies a protocol step: (i) at the left-hand side of a ?? the one, driving manager step is given, if relevant; (ii) the right-hand side lists the role steps being synchronized; (iii) optionally, a change clause [2] can be given updating variables, e.g. one containing the current set of consistency rules. For example, a consistency rule without change clause, MU2:A!B ?? MU1(R):Clock triv ! Anti, MU3(R): Inter toSmall ! Small where a manager step ofMU2 is coupled to the swapping ofMU1 from circling clockwise to anti-clock-wise and swapping MU3 from intermediate inspection into circling on a smaller scale.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publication7th Belgian-Netherlands Software Evolution Workshop (Benevol 2008, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, December 11-12, 2008, Informal pre-proceedings)
EditorsA. Serebrenik
Place of PublicationSerebrenik
PublisherTechnische Universiteit Eindhoven
Pages18-22
Publication statusPublished - 2008

Publication series

NameComputer Science Reports
Volume08-33
ISSN (Print)0926-4515

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'System evolution by migration coordination'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this