skip to main content
10.1145/3344948.3344949acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecsaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A formal semantics for supporting the automated synthesis of choreography-based architectures

Published:09 September 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Nowadays, we are surrounded by a rapidly increasing number of software applications that provide different services in various domains. To fulfill the needs of this new reality, software systems are often built by reusing and integrating existing services distributed over the Internet, and thus promoting a reuse-based software production. Service Choreography is a decentralized service engineering approach to compose and coordinate existing services from a global perspective, in terms of peer-to-peer message exchanges. The current standard de-facto for modeling such choreographies are the BPMN2 Choreography Diagrams. However, BPMN2 specifications lack formal semantics which cause some misinterpretations by practitioners and researchers. Colored Petri Nets (CPN) have been used to model, analyse and simulate various types of systems, in particular distributed ones. Nonetheless, CPN is a formally proved notation with mathematical semantics and tool support. Following an approach similar to [2], this paper first proposes the definition of a rigorous mapping between BPMN2 Choreography Diagrams and CPN-based models. Then, a component-connector architectural style suitable for automated choreography realizability enforcement is proposed, where the devised CPN-based models are used to express the interaction behavior of the represented components and connectors, hence enabling automated reasoning.

References

  1. Marco Autili, Paola Inverardi, and Massimo Tivoli. 2015. Automated Synthesis of Service Choreographies. IEEE Software 32, 1 (2015), 50--57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Marco Autili, Paola Inverardi, and Massimo Tivoli. 2018. Choreography Realizability Enforcement through the Automatic Synthesis of Distributed Coordination Delegates. Sci. Comput. Program. 160 (2018), 3--29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Marco Autili, Davide Di Ruscio, Amleto Di Salle, Paola Inverardi, and Massimo Tivoli. 2013. A Model-Based Synthesis Process for Choreography Realizability Enforcement. In Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering - 16th International Conference, FASE 2013, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2013, Rome, Italy, March 16--24, 2013. Proceedings. 37--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Adam Barker, Christopher D. Walton, and David Robertson. 2009. Choreographing Web Services. IEEE Trans. Services Computing 2, 2 (2009), 152--166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Samik Basu and Tevfik Bultan. 2016. Automated Choreography Repair. In Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering - 19th International Conference, FASE 2016, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2016, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, April 2--8, 2016, Proceedings. 13--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Samik Basu and Tevfik Bultan. 2016. Automated Choreography Repair. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering. 13--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Samik Basu, Tevfik Bultan, and Meriem Ouederni. 2012. Deciding choreography realizability. In Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2012, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, January 22--28, 2012. 191--202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Marco Carbone and Fabrizio Montesi. 2013. Deadlock-freedom-by-design: multiparty asynchronous global programming. In The 40th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL '13, Rome, Italy - January 23 -- 25, 2013. 263--274. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Lei Chen and Cristofer Englund. 2017. Choreographing Services for Smart Cities: Smart Traffic Demonstration. In 85th IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, VTC Spring 2017, Sydney, Australia, June 4--7, 2017. 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Flavio Corradini, Andrea Morichetta, Andrea Polini, Barbara Re, and Francesco Tiezzi. 2018. Collaboration vs. Choreography Conformance in BPMN 2.0: From Theory to Practice. In 22nd IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference. 95--104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. C. Dechsupa, Wiwat Vatanawood, and Arthit Thongtak. 2019. Hierarchical Verification for the BPMN Design Model Using State Space Analysis. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 16795--16815.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. X. Deng, Z. Lin, W. Cheng, R. Xiao, L. Fang, and L. Li. 2007. Modeling Web Service Choreography and Orchestration with Colored Petri Nets. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing, Vol. 2. 838--843. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. European Commission. 2015. Digital Agenda for Europe - Future Internet Research and Experimentation (FIRE) initiative.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. M. Gaur, A. K. Mandal, A. Sarkar, and N. C. Debnath. 2017. Interface driven service composition: A highlevel colored PetriNet based approach. In 2017 International Conference on Recent Advances in Signal Processing, Telecommunications Computing. 59--64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Gregor Gößler and Gwen Salaün. 2011. Realizability of Choreographies for Services Interacting Asynchronously. In Formal Aspects of Component Software - 8th International Symposium, FACS 2011, Oslo, Norway, September 14--16, 2011, Revised Selected Papers. 151--167.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Matthias Güdemann, Pascal Poizat, Gwen Salaün, and Alexandre Dumont. 2013. VerChor: A Framework for Verifying Choreographies.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Matthias Güdemann, Pascal Poizat, Gwen Salaün, and Lina Ye. 2016. VerChor: A Framework for the Design and Verification of Choreographies. IEEE Trans. Services Computing 9, 4 (2016), 647--660.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Matthias Güdemann, Gwen Salaün, and Meriem Ouederni. 2012. Counterexample Guided Synthesis of Monitors for Realizability Enforcement. In Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis - 10th International Symposium, ATVA 2012, Thiruvananthapuram, India, October 3--6, 2012. Proceedings. 238--253. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Paola Inverardi and Simone Scriboni. 2001. Connectors Synthesis for Deadlock-Free Component-Based Architectures. In 16th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2001), 26--29 November 2001, Coronado Island, San Diego, CA, USA. 174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Kurt Jensen. 1993. An Introduction to the Theoretical Aspects of Coloured Petri Nets. In A Decade of Concurrency, Reflections and Perspectives, REX School/Symposium, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, June 1--4, 1993, Proceedings. 230--272. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Kurt Jensen. 1994. An introduction to the theoretical aspects of Coloured Petri Nets. In A Decade of Concurrency Reflections and Perspectives, J. W. de Bakker, W. P. de Roever, and G. Rozenberg (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 230--272. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Kurt Jensen and Lars Michael Kristensen. 2009. Coloured Petri Nets - Modelling and Validation of Concurrent Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Ivan Lanese, Fabrizio Montesi, and Gianluigi Zavattaro. 2015. The Evolution of Jolie - From Orchestrations to Adaptable Choreographies. In Software, Services, and Systems - Essays Dedicated to Martin Wirsing on the Occasion of His Retirement from the Chair of Programming and Software Engineering. 506--521.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Angel Lagares Lemos, Florian Daniel, and Boualem Benatallah. 2016. Web Service Composition: A Survey of Techniques and Tools. ACM Comput. Surv. 48, 3 (2016), 33:1--33:41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Pascal Poizat and Gwen Salaün. 2012. Checking the realizability of BPMN 2.0 choreographies. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2012, Riva, Trento, Italy, March 26--30, 2012. 1927--1934. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Massimo Tivoli and Paola Inverardi. 2008. Failure-free coordinators synthesis for component-based architectures. Sci. Comput. Program. 71, 3 (2008), 181--212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A formal semantics for supporting the automated synthesis of choreography-based architectures

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Other conferences
              ECSA '19: Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Software Architecture - Volume 2
              September 2019
              286 pages
              ISBN:9781450371421
              DOI:10.1145/3344948

              Copyright © 2019 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 9 September 2019

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              ECSA '19 Paper Acceptance Rate48of72submissions,67%Overall Acceptance Rate48of72submissions,67%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader