1 / 32

Behavior Composition in Component Systems

Behavior Composition in Component Systems. Jiří Adámek. The context. The context Automated formal verification of component-based applications. The context. What is formal verification? The process of proving or disproving the correctness of a model with respect to a specified property

nasnan
Télécharger la présentation

Behavior Composition in Component Systems

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. Behavior Composition in Component Systems Jiří Adámek

  2. The context • The context • Automated formal verification of component-based applications Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  3. The context • What is formal verification? • The process of proving or disproving the correctness of a model with respect to a specified property • Model • Finite automata • Specification language • Behavior Protocols • Property • Predefined, component-specific • Automated formal verification • The process is fully automated and does not require human assistance • Verification tools • Example of automated formal verification • Model Checking Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  4. The context: Software components • What are software components? • Building software from reusable blocks with well-defined interfaces • These blocks are called software components • Provided and required interfaces • Primitive and composed components Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  5. The context: Example • Example: the Token component • A part of a complex application providing wireless internet access on airports • This component manages the session of a single user Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  6. The context: Example ?ICustomCallback.InvalidatingToken_1 { !IAccount.AdjustAccountPrepaidTime_1 }* | ?ICustomCallback.InvalidatingToken_2 { !IAccount.AdjustAccountPrepaidTime_2 }* Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  7. !Invalidating Token_1$ !Invalidating Token_2$ ?Invalidating Token_1^ !AdjustAccountPrepaidTime_1^ ?AdjustAccountPrepaidTime_1$ ?Invalidating Token_2^ !AdjustAccountPrepaidTime_2^ ?AdjustAccountPrepaidTime_2$ Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  8. What is behavior composition? A (partial) behavior model is associated with each primitive component Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  9. What is behavior composition? ? Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  10. What is behavior composition? ? Behavior Composition Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  11. Why is behavior composition important? • Case 1 • Behavior model is not manually specified for a composite component • We want to verify the behavior of composite components • Case 2 • Behavior model is manually specified for a composite component • We want to compare the manually written behavior model of a composite component with the automatically constructed one • In order check that the design is consistent  Vertical compliance checking Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  12. My contribution • Analysis of behavior composition in current component models • Identification of drawbacks • Proposal of improvements • Detection of composition errors • Support for reentrant component behavior specification • The improvements were designed for SOFA and behavior protocols Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  13. Detection of composition errors • A typical approach to behavior composition • Model of correct behavior is constructed • A proposed improvement • The resulting model describes both correct behavior and composition errors Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  14. Detection of composition errors • Example of a composition error • ValidityChecker tries to call two methods on ICustomCallback in parallel • CustomToken is not able to accept parallel calls Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  15. Detection of composition errors • Four types of composition errors identified • Bad activity • No activity • Divergence • Unbound requirement error Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  16. Detection of composition errors Standalone detection Context-dependent detection Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  17. Detection of composition errors • Algorithms for detection of all the identified types of composition errors were designed • Both standalone and context-dependent detection • The models: • specified via behavior protocols • describe behavior of SOFA components • The main advantage • Identification of composition errors in an early stage of the development cycle • It does not influence the time and memory complexity of behavior composition Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  18. Support for reentrant component specification • Reentrant component • The methods provided by the component may by called in parallel • There is no upper bound on the number of parallel calls Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  19. Support for reentrant component specification • How to model behavior of a reentrant component? • Absolute view (component design time) • We have no information on the other components of the application • The behavior has to be specified with an infinite state model • It is very difficult to handle infinite models by the tools • Relative view (application design time) • We have the information about other components The behavior can be often specified with a finite state model The model is application-specific Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  20. Support for reentrant component specification • A compromise solution • At the component design time, the behavior is specified via a behavior template • At the application design time, the behavior template is automatically transformed into concrete behavior model The behavior template is general The concrete behavior model is often finite and can be handled by the tools Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  21. Support for reentrant component specification • Languages for behavior templates and concrete behavior models were proposed • They are both based on behavior protocols • An algorithm for automatic transformation of behavior templates into concrete behavior models was designed Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  22. Related work • Parameterized synchronized networks of labeled transition systems • E. Madelaine et. al. • Tracta • J. Kramer et. al • Parameterized contracts • R. H. Reussner, H. W. Schmidt, et. al • Component-interaction automata • I. Cerna et. al • Wright • R. Allen, D. Garlan • Interface Automata • L. De Alfaro, T. Henzinger • I/O Automata • N. A. Lynch, M. R. Tuttle Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  23. Publications (1) • Detection of composition errors • Adamek, J., Plasil, F.: Component Composition Errors and Update Atomicity: Static Analysis, Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 17(5), Sep 2005 • Kofron, J., Adamek, J., Bures, T., Jezek, P., Mencl, V., Parizek, P., Plasil, F.: Checking Fractal Component Behavior Using Behavior Protocols, presented at the 5th Fractal Workshop (part of ECOOP'06), July 3rd, 2006, Nantes, France, Jul 2006 • Adamek, J., Plasil, F.: Partial Bindings of Components - any Harm?, Presented at the SACT 2004 Workshop, Busan, Korea (held in conjunction with the APSEC 2004 conference), and published in the Proceedings of APSEC 2004, IEEE Computer Society, Nov 2004 • Adamek, J., Plasil, F.: Erroneous Architecture is a Relative Concept, in Proceedings of Software Engineering and Applications (SEA) conference, Cambridge, MA, USA, published by ACTA Press, Nov 2004 • Adamek, J.: Static Analysis of Component Systems Using Behavior Protocols, in OOPSLA 2003 Companion, Anaheim, CA, USA, published by ACM, Oct 2003 • Adamek, J., Plasil, F.: Behavior Protocols Capturing Errors and Updates, in Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Unanticipated Software Evolution (USE 2003), ETAPS, published by University of Warsaw, Poland, Apr 2003 Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  24. Publications (2) • Reentrant component specification • Adamek, J.: Addressing Unbounded Parallelism in Verification of Software Components, in proceedings of the Seventh ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking, and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD 2006), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, published by IEEE Computer Society, Jun 2006 Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  25. Citations (1) • Adamek, J., Plasil, F.: Behavior Protocols Capturing Errors and Updates, in Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Unanticipated Software Evolution (USE 2003), ETAPS, published by University of Warsaw, Poland, pp. 17-25, Apr 2003 • J. Buckley, T. Mens, M. Zenger, A. Rashid, G. Kniesel: Towards a taxonomy of software change, Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 17(5), pp. 309 - 332, Sep 2005 • A. Occello and A-M. Dery-Pinna: Safe runtime adaptations of components: a UML metamodel with OCL constraints. In First International Workshop on Foundations of Unanticipated Software Evolution (FUSE'04), Barcelona, Spain, Mar 2004 • A. Occello and A-M. Dery-Pinna: Safety of component adaptations: Elements of formalization. Technical Report I3S/RR-2004-04-FR, Laboratoire I3S - Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis, Bâtiment ESSI - BP145 - F-06903 Sophia Antipolis CEDEX, Jan 2004 • B. Zimmerova, L. Brim, I. Cerna, P. Varekova: Component-Interaction Automata as a Verification-Oriented Component-Based System Specification. Proceedings of SAVCBS 2005 • C. Carrez: Contrats comportementaux pour composants, PhD. thesis, ENST, Paris, France, Dec 2003 Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  26. Citations (2) • Adamek, J.: Static Analysis of Component Systems Using Behavior Protocols, in OOPSLA 2003 Companion, Anaheim, CA, USA, published by ACM, Oct 2003 • T. Barros: Formal specification and verification of distributed component systems, PhD thesis, Université de Nice - INRIA Sophia Antipolis, Nov 2005 • Adamek, J., Plasil, F.: Component Composition Errors and Update Atomicity: Static Analysis, Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 17(5), Sep 2005 • T. Barros: Formal specification and verification of distributed component systems, PhD thesis, Université de Nice - INRIA Sophia Antipolis, Nov 2005 Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  27. Citations (3) • Mencl, V., Adamek, J., Buble, A., Hnetynka, P., Visnovsky, S.: Enhancing EJB Component Model, Tech. Report No. 2001/7, Dep. of SW Engineering, Charles University, Prague, Dec 2001 • A. Farías, Y-G. Guéhéneuc: On the Coherence of Component Protocols. In Uwe Assmann, Elke Pulvermueller, Isabelle Borne, Noury Bouraqadi, and Pierre Cointe, editors, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, volume 82, April 2003, Elsevier Science • A. Farías, Y-G. Guéhéneuc, M. Südholt: Integrating Behavioral Protocols in Enterprise Java Beans. In Kenneth Baclawski and Haim Kilov, editors, Eleventh OOPSLA Workshop on Behavioral Semantics: Serving the Customer, pp. 80--89, Oct 2002 Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  28. Projects • The SOFA project • A tool was implemented: BPChecker • The implementation is work of Jan Kofroň • The CRE project • Supported by France Telecom • The BPChecker ported to the Fractal component model Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  29. Demo • Verification of the Token component: Example 1 • CustomToken accepts only sequential calls • ValidityChecker calls two methods in parallel • Bad activity error ( ?ICustomCallback.InvalidatingToken_1 { !IAccount.AdjustAccountPrepaidTime_1 } + ?ICustomCallback.InvalidatingToken_2 { !IAccount.AdjustAccountPrepaidTime_2 } )* Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  30. Demo Composition error detected – bad activity (!ICustomCallback.InvalidatingToken_1): (S0) #ILifetimeController.Start^ (S1) #ITimer.SetTimeout_1^ (S2) [#ILifetimeController.Start$, #ITimer.SetTimeout_1$] (S3) #ITimerCallback.Timeout^ (S4) #ICustomCallback.InvalidatingToken_2^ (S5) #IToken.InvalidateAndSave^ (S6) Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  31. Demo • Verification of the Token component: Example 2 • CustomToken accepts parallel calls • ValidityChecker calls two methods in parallel • No errors ?ICustomCallback.InvalidatingToken_1 { !IAccount.AdjustAccountPrepaidTime_1 }* | ?ICustomCallback.InvalidatingToken_2 { !IAccount.AdjustAccountPrepaidTime_2 }* Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

  32. Conclusion • Behavior composition in current component models was analyzed • Several improvements were proposed and implemented • Future work • Implementation of the behavior template transformation • A case study • For which kind of application the transformation of a behavior template into a finite concrete behavior model is possible? Jiří AdámekDoctoral thesis defense, September 19, 2006

More Related