580 likes | 765 Vues
Product-Line Architectures. Don Batory Department of Computer Sciences University of Texas at Austin. Introduction. In 1500s, accepted “truth” that the Earth was the center of the Universe Geocentricity was obvious and largely accurate lunar eclipses positions of “fixed” stars
E N D
Product-Line Architectures Don Batory Department of Computer Sciences University of Texas at Austin
Introduction • In 1500s, accepted “truth” that the Earth was the center of the Universe • Geocentricity was obvious and largely accurate • lunar eclipses • positions of “fixed” stars • but planetary motion caused problems...
Retrograde Motions... • complex models (spheres inside spheres) ultimately failed to predict planetary positions accurately
A Revolution • In 1543, Copernicus proposed a radically different explanation of our universe • heliocentricity elegantly explains retrogrades, forms basis of today’s understanding of planetary systems • (Extreme) example of how science evolves • negating commonly held “truths” yields models of the universe that not only are consistent with known facts, but are more powerful and lead to deeper understandings • more common examples lead to incremental advances
Today we elegantly express software as hierarchies of classes and webs of interconnected objects Design int global; int func( ) { ... } void main( ) { global = func( ); … } ... class foo { int a; int b; … } class bar { … } ... Global vars and functions Classes! 1970s 1990s Universe of Software
Looking Ahead... • What software design and construction technologies lie in the future? • How will we understand software? • What will be our “unit” of encapsulation? • How will we produce & specify software? • try negating obvious “truths” and see if a consistent explanation of software remains
Tomorrow product-line architecturesPLAs designs expressed in components codeless programming(software plug-and-play) Some Changeable “Truths” Today one-of-a-kind applications design expressed in objects and classes code our implementations ---------------refinements
Product Line Architectures • blue-print for creating families of related applications • acknowledges companies don’t build individual products, but rather product families • importance: amortize costs of software design and development over multiple products • most innovative work on software design next 10 years • motivation not new: McIlroy ‘69, Parnas “families” ‘76 • now! Jacobsson and Griss variation points
From Components to Refinements • Newest OO methodologies not based purely on objects/classes but on components • components are encapsulated suites of classes; scaling unit of design to packages/frameworks • ex: Catalysis, Rational advocating “component-based software designs” • OO, COM, Corba, Java Beans...
Perspective • I’ve been working on component-based PLA design methodologies for 15 years • encountered domains where components cannot be implemented as OO packages, COM, Corba, … • because performance would be horrendous • Doesn’t mean that components can’t exist for these domains • rather, components must be implemented differently • ex: metaprograms, rule sets of program transformation systems
Generalization... • Today’s notion of components is too implementation oriented or implementation-specific • Key idea: separate component abstraction from its implementation • OO, COM, …, metaprograms, program transformation systems are implementation technologies • Abstraction that unifies the spectrum of component implementations is: Refinement
What are Refinements? • Changes to an application (when adding a feature) are not localized • Refinements are central to a general theory of Product-Line Architectures • abstracts away “component” implementation details yielding common set of abstractions for all domains/PLAs application
Benefit of Refinements... • Significant conceptual economy • one way in which to conceptualize PLAs • many ways in which refinements can be implemented • choice is often domain-specific conceptual building-blocks of PLAs
Towards Software Plug-and-Play... • Programming with today’s components is analogous to (old-fashioned) wire-wrapping hardware chips • traditional library paradigm • very successful, largely manual process
Plug-and-Play • Software construction allows for much greater degrees of automation • want “intelligent” components to know how to “wire-wrap” themselves • don’t manually specify myriad connections • Hardware Plug-and-Play • standardized (hardware) interfaces • novices can do tasks of high-paid experts
Application#4 = Software Plug-and-Play • Do the same for software • standardized (software) interfaces • applications of PLA are specified/assembled as compositions of components • enable “average” programmers the ability to code like experts Codeless Programming!
Motivations ... • Need for: • Product-Line Architectures • Refinements • Software Plug-and-Play • are clear... How to achieve?
extensible systems, open systems domain-specific software architectures aspect-oriented programming subject-oriented programming feature-oriented programming generative programming Many Relevant Results... Note: approaches are NOT identical, essential problems they solve are similar
Common to Models of PLAs • define set of features that arise in a family of applications • each feature has 1+ implementations • an application specified by its set of features w. implementations
Classic Example of PLA (and how not to implement PLAs) • Booch Components • 400+ data structure templates • 18 varieties of dequeues = 3 x 3 x 2Feature Implementationconcurrency (sequential, guarded, synchronized)memory allocation (bounded, unbounded, dynamic)ordering (unordered, ordered)
Oops... Problems... • What happens when new feature added? • ex: persistence • No conventional library could encompass enormous spectrum of data structures (or PLAs) that are encountered in practice Library doubles in size!
Library Scalability Problem n features ® product line of 2n applicationsn features with m implementations ® (1+m)napplications Libraries of PLAs shouldn’t contain components that implement combinations of features
How to Implement PLAs • Libraries should contain components that implement individual, largely orthogonal features • component libraries are small O(n*m) • exponential numbers O((1+m)n) applications constructed from component compositions • ex: Singhal’s Components
Singhal Components • Reengineered Booch Components V1.47 • Singhal Components • 1/4 size, larger product line • more efficient • easy to extend
P3 Generator • Generator of Java Container structures • 9 primitive data structures that can be composed • ex: can generate a data structure where • elements stored in ascending order on field A, and • hash-accessable on field B, and • key-accessable via red-black tree on field C… • P3 equivalent to product-line or library of tens of thousands of containers • generated software typically has faster execution times • optimize where static libraries cannot
What About Other Domains? • Lots of success stories • mostly independent • common set of ideas that are being reinvented • spend a few minutes explaining them... + others
GenVoca • Simple, powerful, and abstract model of PLAs • name derived from first PLAs based on this approach “Genesis” and “Avoca” • Takes idea of components that export and import “standardized” interfaces to its logical conclusion
GenVoca • Domain of applications = Product Line • has fundamental abstractions • define “standardized” interfaces (virtual machines) to abstractions • may have multiple, interrelated classes • “virtual” because clients of interface don’t know how interface is implemented
Realms • Set of components that implement the same virtual machine is realm • is library of plug-compatible, interchangeable components • lots of parameters - look only at realm parameters S = { y, z, w } R = { g[ x:S ], h[ x:S ], i[ x:S ] }
interface R g interface S Parameters • Consider g[x:S] : R • parameters define imported interfaces • g defines a refinement of R into S • refinement doesn’t depend on specific implementation of S
Type Equations • Application is a named composition of components called a type equation S = { y, z, w }R = { g[ x:S ], h[ x:S ], i[ x:S ] } Software Plug-and-Play A1 = g[ y ]; A2 = g[ w ]; A3 = h[ w ];
Grammars and Product Lines • Realms define grammars whose sentences are applications • Set of all sentences = product line S = { y, z, w }R = { g[ x:S ], h[ x:S ], i[ x:S ] } S := y | z | wR := g S | h S | i S
Recursion and Symmetry • Symmetric components • export & import same interface • composable in virtually arbitrary orders • of realm W have parameters of type W • ex: m[n[p]], n[m[p]], m[m[p]] ... W = { m[ x:W ], n[ x:W ], p } W := m W | n W | p
Why is Symmetry Important? • Applications can have open-ended sets of features • symmetric components are the way additional features are added to an application • not changing fundamental abstractions, only enriching them
Design Rules • Although equations may be type correct, there are always combinations of components that don’t make sense • semantic correctness of compositions • domain-specific constraints called design rules that preclude illegal component compositions
Type equation Generator Application Product-Line (Domain) Model • Is an attribute grammar • realms of components define grammar • design rules are semantic constraints per rule • Generator • configuration-tool or compiler that implements PL model
Model Says Nothing About... • When to compose refinements? • dynamic (run-time) • static (compile-time) • How to implement refinements? • Mixins, OO packages, COM, Corba, … • metaprograms • program transformation systems
PLAs OO… MetaProgramming Transformation Syst Static databases avionics compilers data structures protocols Dynamic protocols audio signal processing ?? radio software Examples...
Conceptualize software designs in layered/component-based refinements Design class foo { int a; int b; … } class bar { … } ... Refinements! Classes! TypeEquation A1 = A[ B[ C ] ]; ... What does this mean? Designers who wanted to create product-line architectures by assembling customized applications via plug-and-play...
What is Gained? • PLAs of complexity and diversity that can’t be built in any other way • handful of applications ® tens of thousands of apps • performance of synthesized applications comparable to (usually better than) expert-coded software • improved productivity: x 4 or more • 8-fold reduction in errors reported • Possible to build tools that automatically optimize equations (software designs) • so novices can design and code like experts
But.... • Problems and limitations with every approach • lots of technical problems, no “show stoppers” • hardest problems are non-technical • typical of technology transfer
Non-Technical Problems • Legacy code • companies have legacy code that they want to reuse in product-line applications • willing to accept penalty of hacking source code • reasonable for domains with little variation • Corporate politics • demonstrating PLA capabilities necessary but not sufficient • egos, pre-existing methods, insecure funding … can obscure technical goals • adoption decisions made for non-technical reasons; results are often confused for technical reasons
Non-Technical Problems... Beyond Rational • Think in terms of “layered” refinements and/or standardized interfaces • greatest strength may be greatest weakness • architects may not be open to new approaches • Catch 22 • “we won’t use it until they use it” • Terminology Arms Race • ex#1: “software architecture” • ex#2: Rational Software
Non-Technical Problems... • Not ready for prime time • “That’s not possible!” • “My software is too complicated to be built that way!”
Technical Problems • Open problem: testing • can synthesize applications quickly • still have to test applications • not clear how to reduce tests to reduce product release time • Incompatible World Views • Boston Gas Station Story • ex: how to express refinements in OO?
class subclassing relationship subclass OO Realizations of Refinements • A small-scale refinement adds new data members, methods, and/or overrides existing methods to a class
class class class subclass subclass subclass Large Scale Refinement • Adds new data members and methods simultaneously to several classes
application classes Relationship to GenVoca • GenVoca components are consistent refinements of multiple classes
application classes Scalability Jak = blue[ black[ orange[ yellow ]]]; corresponds to over 500 classes, 26K lines of code
Technical Problems • Can express these ideas as mixins • I.e. a class whose superclass is specified by a parameter • Want clean implementation in Java • neither Java nor Pizza supports parameterized inheritance • need extensible Java (to add features to implement refinements) • Jakarta Tool Suite (JTS) • PLA for Java dialects • GenVoca “generator” by which domain-specific dialects of Java are assembled from components