Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Component meets service: what does the mongrel look like?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computing with services has attracted much attention as a promising approach for developing distributed applications. The approach is often advertised as being superior to distributed component-based software engineering (CBSE), because it provides a higher potential to bridge heterogeneous IT application and infrastructure landscapes. It facilitates cross-institutional cooperation, lets services run over all kinds of ubiquitous communication infrastructure, scales better and simplifies legacy software integration. If this were absolutely true, there would be no reason for a consortium of major vendors of service and Java EE technology to come up with a new specification, called service component architecture (SCA). This emerging standard tries to leverage service-oriented architecture (SOA) principles with component-based software development techniques. In this article we discuss some commonalities and fundamental differences of the CBS and SOA worlds. We illustrate SCA briefly using snippets of an ongoing case study based on an e-university federation. Then we elaborate on the qualities and current deficits of SCA in the light of CBSE findings and related works.

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. ActiveBPEL Engine (2007) The ActiveBPEL Open Source Engine, Active Endpoints. http://www.active-endpoints.com/

  2. Allen R, Garlan D (1997) A formal basis for architectural connection. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 6(3): 213–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alves A et al (2006) Web services business process execution language version 2.0, OASIS. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/18714/wsbpel-specification-draft-May17.htm

  4. Banerji A et al (2002) Web services conversation language (WSCL) 1.0, W3C. http://www.w3.org/TR/wscl10/

  5. Beisiegel M et al (2007) Service component architecture: assembly model specification, SCA Version 1.00, OSOA. http://www.osoa.org/download/attachments/35/SCA_AssemblyModel_V100.pdf?version=1

  6. Beugnard A, Jézéquel JM, Plouzeau N, Watkins D (1999) Making components contract aware. Computer 32(7): 38–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bidoit M, Mosses PD (2004) CASL user manual. LNCS, vol 2900. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brogi A, Canal C, Pimentel E, Vallecillo A (2004) Formalizing web service choreographies. In: Electronic notes in theoretical computer science, vol 105, pp 73–94

  9. Bultan T, Fu X, Su J (2006) Analyzing conversations of web services. IEEE Internet Comput 10(1): 18–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Busi N, Gorrieri R, Guidi C, Lucchi R, Zavattaro G (2005) Towards a formal framework for Choreography. In: 14th IEEE workshops on enabling technologies: infrastructure for collaborative enterprise. IEEE Computer Society Press

  11. Chapman M et al (2007) Service Component Architecture: Client and Implementation Model Specification for WS-BPEL, SCA Version 1.00, OSOA. http://www.osoa.org/download/attachments/35/SCA_ClientAndImplementationModelforBPEL_V100.pdf?version=1

  12. Erl T (2005) Service-oriented architecture: concepts, technology, and design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fiadeiro JL, Lopes A, Bocchi L (2006) A formal approach to service component architecture. In: Bravetti M, Núñez M, Zavattaro G (eds) third intern. workshop on web services and formal methods. LNCS, vol 4184. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 193–213

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Hirsch D, Lluch-Lafuente A, Tuosto E (2006) A logic for application level QoS. Electronic Notes Theor Comput Sci 153(2): 135–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoare CAR (1985) Communicating sequential processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Krämer BJ (1998) Synchronization constraints in object interfaces. In: Krämer BJ, Papazoglou MP, Schmidt H-W (eds) Information systems interoperability. Research Studies Press, Champaign, pp 111–142

    Google Scholar 

  17. Krämer BJ (2000) Forming a federated virtual university through course broker middleware. In: LearnTEC 2000, pp 137–148

  18. Kramer J, Magee J, Uchitel S (2003) Software architecture modeling and analysis: a rigorous approach. In: Bernardo M, Inverardi P (eds) Formal methods for software architectures. LNCS, vol 2804. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 44–51

    Google Scholar 

  19. Magee J, Dulay N, Eisenbach S, Kramer J (1995) Specifying distributed software architectures. In: Schäfer W, Botella P (eds) fifth European software engineering conference. LNCS, vol 989. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 137–153

    Google Scholar 

  20. McIlroy D (1968) Mass-produced software components. In: Software engineering. NATO Science Committee report, pp 138–155

  21. Meredith LG, Bjorg S (2003) Contracts and types. Commun ACM 46(10): 41–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Meyer B (1997) Object-oriented software construction, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. OMG (2003) UML 2.0 OCL specification. http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/03-10-14.pdf

  24. Papazoglou MP, Georgakopoulos D (2003) Service-oriented computing. Spec Issue Commun ACM 10(46): 24–28

    Google Scholar 

  25. Pfadenhauer K, Kittl B, Dustdar S (2005) Challenges and solutions for model driven web service composition. In: fourteenth IEEE intern. workshops on enabling technologies: infrastructure for collaborative enterprise. IEEE Computer Society Press, pp 126–134

  26. Rajamani SK, Rehof J (2006) Models for contract conformance. In: Maragria T, Steffen B (eds) First intern. symposium on leveraging applications of formal methods (ISoLA 2004). LNCS, vol 4313. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 181–196

    Google Scholar 

  27. Reisig W, Lohmann N, Massuthe P, Stahl C, Weinberg D (2006) Analysis techniques for service models. In: Second international symposium on leveraging applications of formal methods, verification and validation (isola 2006), IEEE Computer Society, pp 11–17

  28. Reisig W, Schmidt K, Stahl C (2005) Kommunizierende Workflow-Services modellieren und analysieren, Informatik—Forschung und Entwicklung. Springer, Heidelberg, October (in German), pp 90–101

  29. Schmidt H-W, Krämer BJ, Poernomo IH, Reussner R (2004) Predictable component architectures using dependent finite state machines. In: Wirsing M, Balsamo S, Knapp A (eds) Radical innovations of software and systems engineering in the future. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 310–324

    Google Scholar 

  30. Stafford JA, Wolf AL (2001) Architecture-level dependence analysis for software systems. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 11(4): 431–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Stuckenholz A (2005) Component evolution and versioning: state of the art. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 30(1): 1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stuckenholz A, Osterloh A (2006) Safe component updates. In: GPCE: generative programming and component engineering. ACM Press, New York, pp 39–48

  33. Yang J, Papazoglou MP (2002) Web component: a substrate for web service reuse and composition. In: Pidduck AB, Mylopoulos J, Woo CC, Ozsu MT (eds) Advanced information systems engineering: 14th intern. conference (CAiSE 2002). LNCS, vol 2348. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 21–36

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, FernUniversität in Hagen, 58084, Hagen, Germany

    Bernd J. Krämer

Authors
  1. Bernd J. Krämer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernd J. Krämer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krämer, B.J. Component meets service: what does the mongrel look like?. Innovations Syst Softw Eng 4, 385–394 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-008-0072-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-008-0072-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation