Abstract
With the success of model-driven development as well as component-based and service-oriented systems, models of software architecture are key artefacts in the development process. To adapt to changing requirements and improve internal software quality such models have to evolve while preserving aspects of their behaviour. These behaviour preserving developments are known as refactorings.
The verification of behaviour preservation requires formal semantics that can be defined by model transformation, e.g., using process algebras as semantic domain for architectural models. Denotational semantics of programming languages are by definition compositional. In order to enjoy a similar property in the case of model transformations, every component of the source model should be distinguishable in the target model and the mapping compatible with syntactic and semantic composition.
To avoid the costly verification of refactoring steps on large systems we present a method based on compositional typed graph transformations which allows us to extract a (usually much smaller) rule from the transformation performed and verify this rule instead.
The main result of the paper shows that the verification of rules is indeed sufficient to guarantee the desired semantic relation between source and target models. A formal definition of compositionality for mappings from typed graphs to semantic domains is proposed. In order to guarantee compositionality, a syntactic criterion has been established for the implementation of the mappings by typed graph transformations with negative application conditions. We apply the approach to the refactoring of architectural models based on UML component, structure, and activity diagrams with CSP as semantic domain.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Allen, R.B., Douence, R., Garlan, D.: Specifying and analyzing dynamic software architectures. In: Astesiano, E. (ed.) ETAPS 1998 and FASE 1998. LNCS, vol. 1382, pp. 10–16. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)
AGG - Attributed Graph Grammar System Environment (2007), http://tfs.cs.tu-berlin.de/agg
Bisztray, D., Heckel, R., Ehrig, H.: Verification of architectural refactoring rules. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, University of Leicester (2008), http://www.cs.le.ac.uk/people/dab24/refactoring-techrep.pdf
Bisztray, D.: Verification of architectural refactorings: Rule extraction and tool support. In: ICGT, pp. 475–477 (2008)
Bottoni, P., Koch, M., Parisi-Presicce, F., Taentzer, G.: Termination of high-level replacement units with application to model transformation. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 127(4), 71–86 (2005)
Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. EATCS Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation (Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science). An EATCS Series. Springer, Secaucus (2006)
Ehrig, H., Koenig, B.: Deriving bisimulation congruences in the dpo approach to graph rewriting with borrowed contexts. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 16(6) (2006)
Engels, G., Küster, J.M., Groenewegen, L., Heckel, R.: A methodology for specifying and analyzing consistency of object-oriented behavioral models. In: Gruhn, V. (ed.) Proc. European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC/FSE 2001). LNCS, vol. 1301, pp. 327–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Fowler, M., Beck, K., Brant, J., Opdyke, W., Roberts, D.: Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (1999)
Formal Systems Europe Ltd. FDR2 User Manual (2005), http://www.fsel.com/documentation/fdr2/html/index.html
Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1985)
Laertius, D.: Lives of Eminent Philosophers, vol. 2. Loeb Classical Library (1925)
Lambers, L.: Adhesive high-level replacement systems with negative application conditions. Technical report, Technische Universität Berlin (2007)
Lambers, L., Ehrig, H., Orejas, F., Prange, U.: Adhesive high-level replacement systems with negative application conditions. In: Proceedings of Applied and Computational Category Theory Workshop. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2007)
Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P.: Object invariants in dynamic contexts. In: Odersky, M. (ed.) ECOOP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3086, pp. 491–515. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Mens, T., Demeyer, S., Janssens, D.: Formalising behaviour preserving program transformations. In: Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Kreowski, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2505, pp. 286–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Massoni, T., Gheyi, R., Borba, P.: An approach to invariant-based program refactoring. In: Software Evolution through Transformations 2006, Electronic Communications of the EASST (2006)
Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Dynamic structure in software architectures. In: SIGSOFT 1996: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering, pp. 3–14. ACM Press, New York (1996)
OMG. Unified Modeling Language, version 2.1.1 (2006), http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htm
Guilherme, R., Leen, L., Barbara, K., Hartmut, E., Paolo, B.: Behavior preservation in model refactoring using dpo transformations with borrowed contexts. In: Ehrig, H., Heckel, R., Rozenberg, G., Taentzer, G. (eds.) ICGT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5214, pp. 242–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Schürr, A.: Specification of graph translators with triple graph grammars. In: Mayr, E.W., Schmidt, G., Tinhofer, G. (eds.) WG 1994. LNCS, vol. 903, pp. 151–163. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)
Selic, B.: Using uml for modeling complex real-time systems. In: Müller, F., Bestavros, A. (eds.) LCTES 1998. LNCS, vol. 1474, pp. 250–260. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)
Gerson Sunyé, D., Pollet, Y., Le Traon, Jézéquel, J.-M.: Refactoring uml models (2001)
Tiger Developer Team. Tiger EMF Transformer (2007), http://www.tfs.cs.tu-berlin.de/emftrans
Varró, D.: Model transformation by example. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 410–424. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
van Kempen, M., Chaudron, M., Kourie, D., Boake, A.: Towards proving preservation of behaviour of refactoring of UML models. In: SAICSIT 2005: South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, pp. 252–259 (2005)
Wirsing, M., Clark, A., Gilmore, S., Hölzl, M., Knapp, A., Koch, N., Schroeder, A.: Semantic-Based Development of Service-Oriented Systems. In: Najm, E., Pradat-Peyre, J.-F., Donzeau-Gouge, V.V. (eds.) FORTE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4229, pp. 24–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bisztray, D., Heckel, R., Ehrig, H. (2009). Compositional Verification of Architectural Refactorings. In: de Lemos, R., Fabre, JC., Gacek, C., Gadducci, F., ter Beek, M. (eds) Architecting Dependable Systems VI. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5835. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10248-6_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10248-6_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-10247-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-10248-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)