1 / 18

XTEAM: Automated Synthesis of Domain-Specific Code Generators

Introduction to the Center for Systems and Software Engineering. XTEAM: Automated Synthesis of Domain-Specific Code Generators. George Edwards gedwards@usc.edu. Brief Introduction to CSSE. Established in 1993 as CSE Merged in 2006 with SAE to form CSSE Focus on research and teaching

ferdinand
Télécharger la présentation

XTEAM: Automated Synthesis of Domain-Specific Code Generators

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Introduction to the Center for Systems and Software Engineering XTEAM: Automated Synthesis ofDomain-Specific Code Generators George Edwards gedwards@usc.edu

  2. Brief Introduction to CSSE • Established in 1993 as CSE • Merged in 2006 with SAE to form CSSE • Focus on research and teaching • MSCS with emphasis in SE • Graduate Certificate in SAE • Two Certificate and Advanced Degree programs • Objective is to solve scientific problems with industrial relevance

  3. CSSE Affiliates • 22 industrial affiliates • 8 from aerospace industry • 12 from other industries • 2 international • 12 government affiliates • 6 government agencies • incl. US Army TACOM and Research Labs • 6 FFRDCs and consortia • 7 academic affiliates • 5 universities • 2 research centers • 3 visiting associates

  4. Research Focus Areas • Architecture • Economics • Process • Testing & analysis

  5. Software Architecture Research • Modeling • Analysis • Implementation • Deployment • Dynamic adaptation • Architectural styles • Software connectors • Architectural recovery

  6. XTEAM Project Overview • Processes, notations, tools, and designs that enable automated synthesis of end-to-end domain-specific toolsets for software architecture modeling, analysis, and code generation • Example application areas: • Systems-of-systems and ultra-large-scale systems • Safety- and mission-critical systems • Cloud and grid systems

  7. Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs) • Customized for a particular family of problems(the domain) • Concise and intuitive • No missing or extra features • Capture patterns • Enforce constraints • Use native symbols and terms • Can be modified, evolved, and composed

  8. Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) • MDEleverages DSLs for architecture modeling • Metamodelsdefine DSL syntax (types, properties, views, and constraints) • Model interpreters define DSL semantics (analysis, code generation, etc.) • MDE platforms provide (some) tool support • Metamodel editor with built-in metamodeling language • Metamodel interpreter that configures a metaprogrammable model editor Off-the-shelf Metamodel Editor Metaprogrammable Model Editor Model Execution Environment (Semantic Domain) Auto generated Metamodeling Language Domain-Specific Language Model Interpreter Metamodel Interpreter Executable Model Executable Model Executable Model Built by engineer Domain-Specific Model Domain-Specific Model Metamodel Domain-Specific Model 8

  9. Problems with MDE “The difficulty of building and maintaining a DSM solution stems essentially from the complexity of the mapping between the concept instances expressed in the DSML and the code that has to be generated.” A. L. Santos et al. Automating the Construction of Domain-Specific Modeling Languages for Object-Oriented Frameworks. Journal of Software and Systems, 2010. “There is a fundamental problem in keeping the model interpreters up to date with metamodel changes ... Current practice requires each model interpreter to be modified manually after each metamodel schema change. This can be a very time-consuming and error prone task for complex model interpreters of considerable size.” Jing Zhang. Metamodel-Driven Model Interpreter Evolution. Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications, 2005. • Building and maintaining code generators for DSLs is inherently difficult • High design complexity • Disproportionate maintenance and evolution costs • Hard to verify correctness • Redundant development effort • Opaque semantics embedded in source code “Checking mathematical properties like correctness or completeness of transformations based on common programming languages is very difficult...” I. Malavolta, H. Muccini, P. Pelliccione, and D. Tamburri. Providing Architectural Languages and Tools Interoperability through Model Transformation Technologies. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2009. “The state-of-the-art of model interpreter writing needs to be advanced to enhance the reusability and maintainability of this software...” G. Karsai. Structured Specification of Model Interpreters. Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, 1999. “Writing translators by hand... in addition to being inefficient, has yet another serious drawback: the semantic mapping between the input and the output is vaguely specified...[Building model interpreters] is the most time consuming and error prone phase of the MIC approach...” G. Karsai, A. Agrawal, F. Shi, J. Sprinkle. On the Use of Graph Transformation in the Formal Specification of Model Interpreters. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 2003.

  10. FCS: A Real World Example • > $100 billion US Army program • DSL with hundreds of types • Modified on a daily basis • Automated generation of: • Discrete event simulations • Middleware configuration files • Fault trees • Spreadsheets for documentation Tool building and maintenance required approximately five full-time MDE experts

  11. XTEAM Solution Approach Synthesize domain-specific code generators using the same mechanisms that have proven successful for synthesizing domain-specific model editors. Model Editor Framework Target Display Metamodel Editor Metamodel Interpreter A Visualized Model Metamodel Application Model (Abstract Representation) Model Interpreter Framework Target Platform Metamodel Interpreter B Executable Model

  12. XTEAM Toolset Off-the-Shelf Component XTEAM Component Connector SVNRepository Languages and Platforms XDEVS Discrete Event Simulation Engine GME Model Editor MS COM XDEVS MIF Extensions XDEVS Simulations (C++) XTEAM Models (XML/HTTP) XTEAM Metamodels (XML/HTTP) Fedora Linux XDEVS MIF C++ XTEAM DSLs GMEModel Editor MS COM GME Metainterpreter Prism-MW Lightweight Architectural Middleware MS COM Prism-MW MIF Extensions XDEVS Metainterpreter Prism-MW Applications (Java) XTEAM Metalanguage Prism-MW MIF Prism-MW Metainterpreter JVM Windows/C++/Visual Studio 12

  13. XTEAM Simulations • Providing design rationale • Weighing architectural trade-offs • Discovering emergent behavior of component assemblies • Validating component implementations 13

  14. Providing Design Rationale Client-Server Architecture • Architects rely on intuition and experience to make important decisions early in the design phase • What architectural style to use • How to allocate functionality among subsystems • What types of connectors to use • XTEAM allows architects to rationalize such decisions with experimental evidence • Model confidence level: Low Peer-to-peer Architecture Potential Workload

  15. Weighing Architectural Trade-offs • Nearly all architectural decisions come down to trade-offs between multiple desirable properties • Emphasis on one system property may yield diminishing returns • XTEAM allows architects to evaluate design alternatives in terms of their impact on multiple non-functional properties • Model confidence level: Medium Decreases response time Replication of components Consumes more battery power

  16. Evaluating Component Assemblies • Contemporary large-scale distributed systems contain numerous off-the-shelf components • Detailed information about the behaviors and properties of individual components may be known • Component assemblies may exhibit unforeseen behavior due to subtle interactions between constituent components • XTEAM allows an architect to determine the emergent properties of a composed system • Model confidence level: High Determination of emergent properties Off-the-shelf components Highly accurate parameterization

  17. Incremental System Validation • Individual component implementations may become available in a piecemeal fashion • XTEAM allows architects to • Immediately incorporate component implementations into a simulated system, increasing the accuracy of analysis results • Rapidly test individual components in the context of a wide variety of operational scenarios • Model confidence level: High Component implementation available Invoke implementation from behavior model Integrated simulation and test environment

  18. For More Information • CSSE Website: http://csse.usc.edu/csse/ • XTEAM Website: http://www-scf.usc.edu/~gedwards/xteam.html

More Related