Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A new formalism for mathematical description and verification of component-based systems

  • Published:
The Journal of Supercomputing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce a formal approach for composing software components into a distributed system. We describe the system as a hierarchical composition of some components, which can be distributed on a wide variety of hardware platforms and executed in parallel. We represent each component by a mathematical model and specify the abstract communication protocols of the components using Interface Automata (IAs). To model hierarchical systems, besides the basic components’ model, we will present other components, called nodes. A node consists of a set of subnodes interacting under the supervision of a controller. Each subnode, in turn, is a node or discrete event component. By considering a subnode as a node we can make hierarchical nodes/components. The entire system, therefore, forms the root of the hierarchy. A controller, in turn, is a set of subcontrollers/interface automata that specifies interaction protocol of the components inside a node. We have also presented an example demonstrating the model by illustrating nodes, subnodes, controllers, and subcontrollers. To address the state space explosion problem in system verification, we utilize the controller as a contract for independent analysis of the components and their interactions. Therefore, a node will not be analyzed directly; instead, we will analyze the controller.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arnold A (1994) Finite transition systems: semantics of communicating processes. Prentice Hall, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Bernardo M, Ciancarini P, Donatiello L (2002) Families of software systems with process algebras. ACM TOSEM 11(4):386–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brim L, Cerna I, Varekova P, Zimmerova B (2006) Interaction automata as a verification-oriented component-based system specification. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 31(2):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bures T, Hnetynka P, Plasil F (2006) Balancing advanced features in a hierarchical component model. In: Proceedings of SERA, pp 40–48, Seattle, USA, IEEE CS, Aug 2006

  5. Cheung SC, Giannakopoulou D, Kramer J (1997) Verification of liveness properties using compositional reachability analysis. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes Arch 22(6):227–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Clarke EM, Emerson EA, Sistla AP (1986) Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 8(2):244–263

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. de Alfaro L, Henzinger T (2001) Interface automata. In: Proceedings of the joint 8th European software engineering conference and 9th ACM SIGSOFT symposium on the foundation of software engineering (ESEC/FSE-01), September 10–14 2001. 5 of software engineering notes, vol 26. ACM Press, New York, pp 109–120

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. de Alfaro L, Henzinger T (2004) Interface-based design. In: Marktoberdorf summer school, pp 50–65. Kluwer, April 12–15 2004

  9. DePrince W, Hofmeister C (2003) Enforcing a lips usage policy for Corba components. In: EUROMICRO conf, new waves in system architecture, 2003, pp 53–60

  10. Jin Y, Lakos C, Esser R (2003) Component-based design and analysis: a case study. In: Software engineering and formal methods (SEFM). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, pp 126–135

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jin Y, Lakos C, Esser R (2004) Modular consistency analysis of component-based designs. J Res Pract Inf Technol 36(3):186–208

    Google Scholar 

  12. Khammaci T, Smeda A, Oussalah M (2006) Mapping Cosa software architecture concepts into uml 2.0. icis-comsar 1:109–114

    Google Scholar 

  13. Leduc RJ (2007) Private communication, 2007. Department of Computing and Software, Faculty of Engineering, McMaster University, Canada

  14. Leduc RJ, Brandin BA, Lawford M, Wonham W (2005) Hierarchical interface-based supervisory control-part i: serial case. IEEE Trans Autom Control 50(9):1322–1335

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Leduc RJ, Lawford M, Dai P (2006) Hierarchical interface-based supervisory control of flexible manufacturing system. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 14(4):654–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Leduc RJ, Lawford M, Wonham W (2005) Hierarchical interface-based supervisory control-part ii: parallel case. IEEE Trans Autom Control 50(9):1336–1348

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Magee J, Dulay N, Kramer J (1994) A constructive development environment for parallel and distributed programs. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on configurable distributed systems, Pittsburgh, March 1994, pp 4–14

  18. McMillan K (1992) Symbolic model checking: an approach to the state explosion problem. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science

  19. Parnas DL (2000) Requirements documentation: why a formal basis is essential. In: Fourth IEEE international conference on requirements engineering (ICRE2000). Available online at: http://web.cps.msu.edu/sens/temp/ICRE2000/parnas.pdf

  20. Plasil F, Visnovsky S (2002) Behavior protocols for software components. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 28(11):1056–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pnueli A (1977) The temporal logic of programs. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE symposium foundations of computer science (FOCS 1977), Providence, 1977, pp 46–57

  22. Schlingloff H (1997) Verification of finite-state systems with temporal logic model checking. South African Comput 19:27–52

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sistla AP (1994) Safety, liveness and fairness in temporal logic. J Formal Aspects Comput 6(5):495–511

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Smeda A, Khammaci T, Oussalah M (2004) Operational mechanisms for component-object based software architecture. In: Proceeding of information and communication technologies: from theory to applications, 19–23, April 2004, pp 591–592

  25. Szyperski C (2002) Component software: beyond object-oriented programming, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  26. Xiong Y (2002) An extensible type system for component-based design. PhD thesis, Electronics Research Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, May 2002

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

    Ayaz Isazadeh & Jaber Karimpour

Authors
  1. Ayaz Isazadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jaber Karimpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaber Karimpour.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Isazadeh, A., Karimpour, J. A new formalism for mathematical description and verification of component-based systems. J Supercomput 49, 334–353 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-008-0240-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-008-0240-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation