Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Domain analysis of dynamic system reconfiguration

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Software & Systems Modeling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A domain analysis of dynamic system reconfiguration is presented in this paper. The intent is to provide a comprehensive conceptual framework within which to systematically and consistently address problems and solutions related to dynamically reconfigurable systems. The analysis identifies and categorizes the various types of change that may be required, the relationship between those types, and the system integrity characteristics that need to be considered when such changes take place. A system model is employed to describe each change type using examples of global and local properties in the context of a financial analysis system. A rigorous formal methodology, based on the Alloy language and tools, is employed to specify precisely and formally the detailed relationships between various parts of the model. Based upon these descriptions, the types of change of dynamic system reconfiguration are presented as a series of UML class models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jarke, M.: Meta models for requirements engineering. 1996

  2. Jarke, M.: Requirements tracing (Introduction). Commun. ACM 41(12), pp. 32–36 (1998)

  3. Georgiadis, I., Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Self-organising software Architectures for distributed systems. In: ACM WOSS ’02. ACM Charleston, SC (2002)

  4. Robertson, P., Shrobe, H., Ladaga, R. (eds.): Self-Adaptive software. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, In: Goos, G., Hartmanis, J., van Leeuwen, J (eds.) vol. 1936. p. 247 Springer-Verlag, New York (2000)

  5. Karsai, G., et al.: An Approach to self-adaptive software based on supervisory control. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2614/2003, pp. 24–38 (2001)

  6. Walsh, D., Bordeleau, F., Selic, B.: A Domain model for dynamic system reconfiguration. in ACM/IEEE 8th International Conference on model driven engineering languages and systems. Springer, Montego Bay, Jamaica (2005)

  7. Szyperski, C.: Component Software: beyond object-oriented programming second edition. Component software series. Addison-Wesley, New York (2002)

  8. Deployment-and-Configuration-Draft-Adopted-Specification: Deployment and configuration draft adopted specification.OMG: Needham (2003)

  9. Oreizy, P., et al.: An architecture-based approach to self-adaptive software. IEEE Intell. Syst. pp. 54–62 (1999)

  10. Appavoo J. (2003). Enabling automatic behavior in systems software with hot swapping. IBM Syst. J. 42(1): 60–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lopes, A., Wermelinger M., Fiadeiro, J.L.: Higher-Order Architectural Connectors. ACM Trans. Software Eng. Methodol. 12(1), 64–104 (2003)

  12. Whisnant, K., Kalbarczyk, Z.T., Iyer, R.K.: A system model for dynamically reconfigurable software. IBM Syst. J. 42(1), pp. 45–59 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Oreizy, P.: Issues in modeling and analyzing dynamic software architectures. Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California (1999)

  14. Oreizy, P., Medvidovic, N., Taylor, R.N.: Architecture-based runtime software evolution. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering. (1998)

  15. Czarnecki, K., Eisennecker, U.W.: Generative programming: methods, tools, and applications. Addison-Wesley, New York (2000)

  16. Gomaa, H.: Designing Software Product Lines with UML From Use Cases to Pattern-Based Software Architectures. In: Booch, G., Jacobson, I., Rumbaugh, J.(eds.) Object Technology Series, Addison-Wesley, New York, (2004)

  17. Jackson, D., Schechter, I., Shlyakhter, I.: Alcoa: the alloy constraint analyzer. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1999)

  18. Jackson, D.: Alloy: A Lightweight Object Modelling Notation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. pp. 32 (2001)

  19. Jackson, D.: Micromodels of Software: lightweight modelling and analysis with alloy. MIT Lab for Computer Science, Cambridge, Mass. pp. 1–58 (2002)

  20. Vaziri, M., Jackson, D.: Some shortcomings of OCL, the Object Constraint Language of UML. MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, Cambridge, Mass. pp. 1–17 (1999)

  21. Marriott, K., Stuckey, P.J.: Programming with Constraints An Introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass (1998)

  22. Duffy D.J. (2004). Domain architectures models and architectures for UML applications. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fowler M. (2004). UML distilled third edition a brief guide to the standard object modeling language. Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Warmer J. and Kleppe A. (2003). The object constraint language second edition getting your models ready for MDA. Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lee, M.A., Smith, M.H.: Handling uncertainty in finance applications using soft computing. in 3rd International Symposium on Uncertainty Modelling and Analysis (ISUMA ’95). IEEE Press. (1995)

  26. Helfert E.A. (2001). Financial analysis tools and techniques a guide for managers. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Buhr R.J.A. and Casselman R.S. (1996). Use case maps for object-oriented systems. Prentice Hall, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Walsh, D., Bordeleau, F., Selic, B.: Change types of dynamic system reconfiguration. in 13th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems (ECBS). IEEE Potsdam, Germany (2006)

  29. Kiczales G., des Rivieres J. and Bobrow D.G. (1991). The art of the metaobject protocol. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  30. Medvidovic, N., Taylor, R.N.: A Classification and comparison framework for software architecture desiption languages. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 26(1), pp. 70–93 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Walsh, D.: Dynamic system reconfiguration Ph.D. Supporting technical reports, in school of computer science, Carleton University. Ottawa-Carleton Institute for Computer Science, Ottawa, Canada (2006)

  32. Frankel, D.: Model driven architecture Applying MDA to enterprise computing. In: Press, O.(ed.) Wiley Publishing, Indianapolis, Indiana (2003)

  33. Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Dynamic configuration for distributed systems. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. SE-11(4), pp. 424–435 (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Dynamic Structure in Software Architectures. In: ACM SIGSOFT ’96. ACM, San Francisco (1996)

  35. Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Analysing dynamic Change in Software Architectures: A case study. in IEEE 4th International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems. Anapolis, Maryland: IEEE (1998)

  36. Bialek, R.P.: The architecture of a dynamically updatable, component-based system. in 26th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC ’02). IEEE Computer Society (2002)

  37. Warren, I., Sommerville, I.: A model for dynamic configuration which preserves application integrity. In: IEEE 3rd International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems (ICCDS ’96). IEEE (1996)

  38. Guo, J.: Software Components Adaptive Integration. in Eighth Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems (ECBS ’01). IEEE Computer Society (2001)

  39. Minsky, N.H., et al.: Building reconfiguration primitives into the law of a system. in 3rd IEEE International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems (ICCDS ’96). IEEE (1996)

  40. Wermelinger, M., Lopes, A., Fiadeiro, J.L.: A Graph based architectural (Re)configuration Language. in ACM ESE/FSE 2001. ACM, Vienna, Austria (2001)

  41. Wermelinger, M.: Specification of software architecture Reconfiguration, in departmento de informatica. Universidade Nove de Lisboa: Lisbon, Portugal(1999)

  42. Lopes, A., Wermelinger, M., Fiadeiro, J.L.: A Compositional Approach to connector construction. in 5th International Workshop on Algebraic Development Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

  43. Birman, K., Schiper, A., Stephenson, P.: Lightweight causal and atomic group multicast. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 9(3), pp. 271–314 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  44. IBM, The K42 Project. 2003, IBM Corporation Research Division

  45. Yellin, D.M.: Competitive algorithms for the dynamic selection of component implementations. IBM Syst. J. 42(3), pp. 85–97 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1M014

    James D’Arcy Walsh, Francis Bordeleau & Bran Selic

Authors
  1. James D’Arcy Walsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francis Bordeleau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bran Selic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James D’Arcy Walsh.

Additional information

Communicated by Dr. Lionel Briand.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walsh, J.D., Bordeleau, F. & Selic, B. Domain analysis of dynamic system reconfiguration. Softw Syst Model 6, 355–380 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-006-0038-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-006-0038-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation