maisМоделирование и анализ информационных системModeling and Analysis of Information Systems1818-10152313-5417Yaroslavl State University10.18255/1818-1015-2016-6-804-825mais-416Research ArticleОригинальные статьиArticlesРеконфигурирование компонентно-ориентированных систем на базе графовых грамматикComponent-based Systems Reconfigurations Using Graph Grammarshttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1482-9015КушнаренкоО. Б.KouchnarenkoO.

профессор информатики, доктор, ул. Рут де Грей, 16, г. Безансон, 25000 Франция

PhD, 16 route de Gray, 25000 Besancon, France

olga.kouchnarenko@univ-fcomte.frВеберЖ.-Ф.WeberJ.-F.

аспирант, ул. Рут де Грей, 16, г. Безансон, 25000 Франция

graduate student, 16 route de Gray, 25000 Besancon,France

jfweber@femto-st.frУниверситет Бургундия Франш-КомтэФранцияUniversite de Bourgogne - Franche-ComteFrance201620122016236804825Copyright © Кушнаренко О.Б., Вебер Ж., 20162016Кушнаренко О.Б., Вебер Ж.Kouchnarenko O., Weber J.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.mais-journal.ru/jour/article/view/416

Динамические реконфигурирования могут изменять архитектуру компонентно-ориентированных систем, не подвергаясь никакому системному простою. В этом контексте основной вклад данной статьи – доказательство результатов корректности реконфигурирования систем, используя графовые грамматики. В этой статье предложены новые охраняемые реконфигурирования на базе логики Хоара, которые построены на основе примитивных операций по реконфигурированию и включают последовательности реконфигурирований, альтернативные и повторяющиеся конструкции, сохраняя при этом непротиворечивость конфигураций. Практический вклад состоит в описании имплементации компонентно-ориентированной модели, используя программный инструмент GROOVE для преобразования графов. После обогащения модели интерпретированными конфигурациями и реконфигурированиями, совместимого с непротиворечивостью, отношение симуляции используется для доказательства корректности имплементации, выполненной под GROOVE. Эта имплементация иллюстрирована на примере многоуровневого облачно-ориентированного приложения.

Dynamic reconfigurations can modify the architecture of component-based systems without incurring any system downtime. In this context, the main contribution of the present article is the establishment of correctness results proving component-based systems reconfigurations using graph grammars. New guarded reconfigurations allow us to build reconfigurations based on primitive reconfiguration operations using sequences of reconfigurations and the alternative and the repetitive constructs, while preserving configuration consistency. A practical contribution consists of the implementation of a component-based model using the GROOVE graph transformation tool. Then, after enriching the model with interpreted configurations and reconfigurations in a consistency compatible manner, a simulation relation is exploited to validate component systems’ implementations. This sound implementation is illustrated on a cloud-based multitier application hosting environment managed as a component-based system.

компонентно-ориентированные системыдинамическое реконфигурированиенепротиворечивостьсоответствиереализацияGROOVEcomponent-based systemsdynamic reconfigurationsconsistencysimulation relationimplementationGROOVEReferencesDe Lemos R., Giese H., MuЁller H. A., Shaw M., Andersson J., Litoiu M., Schmerl B., Tamura G., Villegas N. M., Vogel T., et al., “Software engineering for self-adaptive systems: A second research roadmap”, Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems II, 2013, 1– 32.De Lemos R., Giese H., MuЁller H. A., Shaw M., Andersson J., Litoiu M., Schmerl B., Tamura G., Villegas N. M., Vogel T., et al., “Software engineering for self-adaptive systems: A second research roadmap”, Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems II, 2013, 1– 32.Dwyer M. B., Avrunin G. S., Corbett J. C., “Patterns in property specifications for finite- state verification”, Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on, Software Engineering, 1999, 411–420.Dwyer M. B., Avrunin G. S., Corbett J. C., “Patterns in property specifications for finite- state verification”, Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on, Software Engineering, 1999, 411–420.Dormoy J., Kouchnarenko O., Lanoix A., “Runtime verification of temporal patterns for dynamic reconfigurations of components”, LNCS, 7253, eds. Arbab F., OЁlveczky P., Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, 115–132.Dormoy J., Kouchnarenko O., Lanoix A., “Runtime verification of temporal patterns for dynamic reconfigurations of components”, LNCS, 7253, eds. Arbab F., OЁlveczky P., Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, 115–132.Trentelman K., Huisman M., “Extending JML specifications with temporal logic”, Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology, 2002, 334–348.Trentelman K., Huisman M., “Extending JML specifications with temporal logic”, Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology, 2002, 334–348.Kouchnarenko O., Weber J. F., “Adapting component-based systems at runtime via policies with temporal patterns”, LNCS, 8348, eds. Fiadeiro J. L., Liu Z., Xue J., Springer, 2014, 234–253.Kouchnarenko O., Weber J. F., “Adapting component-based systems at runtime via policies with temporal patterns”, LNCS, 8348, eds. Fiadeiro J. L., Liu Z., Xue J., Springer, 2014, 234–253.Kouchnarenko O., Weber J. F., “Decentralised evaluation of temporal patterns over component-based systems at runtime”, LNCS, 8997, eds. Lanese I., Madelaine E., Springer, 2015, 108–126.Kouchnarenko O., Weber J. F., “Decentralised evaluation of temporal patterns over component-based systems at runtime”, LNCS, 8997, eds. Lanese I., Madelaine E., Springer, 2015, 108–126.Lanoix A., Dormoy J., Kouchnarenko O., “Combining proof and model-checking to validate reconfigurable architectures”, ENTCS, 279 (2011), 43–57.Lanoix A., Dormoy J., Kouchnarenko O., “Combining proof and model-checking to validate reconfigurable architectures”, ENTCS, 279 (2011), 43–57.Dijkstra E. W., “Guarded commands, nondeterminacy and formal derivation of programs”, Communications of the ACM, 18 (1975), 453–457.Dijkstra E. W., “Guarded commands, nondeterminacy and formal derivation of programs”, Communications of the ACM, 18 (1975), 453–457.Ghamarian A.H., de Mol M., Rensink A., Zambon E., Zimakova M., “Modelling and analysis using GROOVE”, J. on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 14 (2012), 15–40.Ghamarian A.H., de Mol M., Rensink A., Zambon E., Zimakova M., “Modelling and analysis using GROOVE”, J. on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 14 (2012), 15–40.Bruneton E., Coupaye T., Leclercq M., Queґma V., Stefani J. B., “The fractal component model and its support in java”, Softw., Pract. Exper., 36 (2006), 1257–1284.Bruneton E., Coupaye T., Leclercq M., Queґma V., Stefani J. B., “The fractal component model and its support in java”, Softw., Pract. Exper., 36 (2006), 1257–1284.Schneider S., Treharne H., “Csp theorems for communicating b machines”, Formal Asp. Comput., 17 (2005), 390–422.Schneider S., Treharne H., “Csp theorems for communicating b machines”, Formal Asp. Comput., 17 (2005), 390–422.Seinturier L., Merle P., Rouvoy R., Romero D., Schiavoni V., Stefani J.B., “A component-based middleware platform for reconfigurable service-oriented architectures”, Software: Practice and Experience, 42 (2012), 559–583.Seinturier L., Merle P., Rouvoy R., Romero D., Schiavoni V., Stefani J.B., “A component-based middleware platform for reconfigurable service-oriented architectures”, Software: Practice and Experience, 42 (2012), 559–583.Dormoy J., Kouchnarenko O., Lanoix A., “Using temporal logic for dynamic reconfigurations of components”, LNCS, 6921, eds. Barbosa L., Lumpe M., Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, 200–217.Dormoy J., Kouchnarenko O., Lanoix A., “Using temporal logic for dynamic reconfigurations of components”, LNCS, 6921, eds. Barbosa L., Lumpe M., Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, 200–217.Hamilton A. G., Logic for mathematicians, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1978.Hamilton A. G., Logic for mathematicians, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1978.Hoare C. A. R., “An axiomatic basis for computer programming”, Communications of the ACM, 12 (1969), 576–580.Hoare C. A. R., “An axiomatic basis for computer programming”, Communications of the ACM, 12 (1969), 576–580.Milner R., Communication and concurrency, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1989.Milner R., Communication and concurrency, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1989.Ma X., Baresi L., Ghezzi C., Panzica La Manna V., Lu J., “Version-consistent dynamic reconfiguration of component-based distributed systems”, ACM, Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT symposium and the 13th European conference on Foundations of software engineering, 2011, 245–255.Ma X., Baresi L., Ghezzi C., Panzica La Manna V., Lu J., “Version-consistent dynamic reconfiguration of component-based distributed systems”, ACM, Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT symposium and the 13th European conference on Foundations of software engineering, 2011, 245–255.Boyer F., Gruber O., Pous D., “Robust reconfigurations of component assemblies”, Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE ’13, Piscataway), 2013, 13–22.Boyer F., Gruber O., Pous D., “Robust reconfigurations of component assemblies”, Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE ’13, Piscataway), 2013, 13–22.Kramer J., Magee J., “The evolving philosophers problem: Dynamic change management”, Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions, 16 (1990), 1293–1306.Kramer J., Magee J., “The evolving philosophers problem: Dynamic change management”, Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions, 16 (1990), 1293–1306.Vandewoude Y., Ebraert P., Berbers Y., D’Hondt T., “Tranquility: A low disruptive alternative to quiescence for ensuring safe dynamic updates”, Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions, 33 (2007), 856–868.Vandewoude Y., Ebraert P., Berbers Y., D’Hondt T., “Tranquility: A low disruptive alternative to quiescence for ensuring safe dynamic updates”, Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions, 33 (2007), 856–868.Le Metayer D., “Describing software architecture styles using graph grammars”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24 (1998), 521–533.Le Metayer D., “Describing software architecture styles using graph grammars”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24 (1998), 521–533.KaЁhkoЁnen K., Lampinen J., Heljanko K., NiemelaЁ I., “The lime interface specification language and runtime monitoring tool”, Int. Wshop on Runtime Verification, RV’09, LNCS, 5779, eds. Bensalem S., Peled D.A., Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2009, 93–100.KaЁhkoЁnen K., Lampinen J., Heljanko K., NiemelaЁ I., “The lime interface specification language and runtime monitoring tool”, Int. Wshop on Runtime Verification, RV’09, LNCS, 5779, eds. Bensalem S., Peled D.A., Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2009, 93–100.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.