Advertisement

DySOA: Making Service Systems Self-adaptive

  • Johanneke Siljee
  • Ivor Bosloper
  • Jos Nijhuis
  • Dieter Hammer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3826)

Abstract

Service-centric systems exist in a very dynamic environment. This requires these systems to adapt at runtime in order to keep fulfilling their QoS. In order to create self-adaptive service systems, developers should not only design the service architecture, but also need to design the self-adaptability aspects in a structured way. A key aspect in creating these self-adaptive service systems is modeling runtime variability properties. In this paper, we propose DySOA (Dynamic Service-Oriented Architecture), an architecture that extends service-centric applications to make them self-adaptive. DySOA allows developers to explicitly model elements that deal with QoS evaluation and variable composition configurations. Having the DySOA elements explicit enables separation of concerns, making them adaptable at runtime and reusable in next versions. We demonstrate the use of DySOA with an example.

Keywords

Service Composition Variation Point Streaming Video Service Playback Device Extrinsic Constraint 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Microsoft, Service-Oriented Architecture: Implementation Challenges (2004), http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnmaj/html/aj2soaimpc.asp
  2. 2.
    Schmelzer, R.: Service-Oriented Process Foundation Report, ZTR-WS108, ZapThink (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alonso, G., Casati, F., Kuno, H., Machiraju, V.: Web Services - Concepts, Architectures and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tsai, W.T., Song, W., Paul, R., Cao, Z., Huang, H.: Services-Oriented Dynamic Reconfiguration Framework for Dependable Distributed Computing. In: COMPSAC 2004, Hong Kong, pp. 554–559 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shaw, M., Garlan, D.: Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    W3C Recommendation, OWL Web Ontology Language Overview, Recommendation (2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-owl-ref-20040210
  7. 7.
    Bosch, J.: Design & Use of Software Architectures - Adopting and Evolving a Product Line Approach. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sinnema, M., Deelstra, S., Nijhuis, J., Bosch, J.: COVAMOF: A Framework for Modeling Variability in Software Product Families. In: The Third Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2004), Boston, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yang, Z., Cheng, B., Stirewalt, K., Sadjadis, M., Sowell, J., Mckinley, P.: An Aspect- Oriented Approach to Dynamic Adaptation. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Self- Healing Systems (WOSS 2002), ACM SIGSOFT, Charleston, SC (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Truyen, E., Vanhaute, B., Nørregaard Jørgensen, B., Joosen, W., Verbaeten, P.: Dynamic and selective combination of extensions in component-based applications, pp. 223–242. IEEE, Toronto (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tsai, W.T., Song, W., Paul, R., Cao, Z., Huang, H.: Services-Oriented Dynamic Reconfiguration Framework for Dependable Distributed Computing, Hong Kong, pp. 554–559 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Allen, R., Douence, D., Garlan, D.: Specifying and analyzing Dynamic Software Architecture, pp. 21–37. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Dynamic Structure in Software Architectures. In: Fourth Symposium on the Foundation of Software Engineering (FSE 4), ACM SIGSOFT, pp. 24–27 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gorlick, M.M., Razouk, R.R.: Using Weaves for Software Construction and Analysis. In: 13th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 13), pp. 23–34 (1991)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bapty, T., Scoot, J., Neema, S., Sjtipanovits, S.: Uniform Execution Environment for Dynamic Reconfiguration. In: IEEE Conference and Workshop on Computer-Based Systems, Nashville, Tenessee (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brusilovsky, P., Karagiannidis, C., Sampson, D.: The benefits of layered evaluation of adaptive applications and services. In: Workshop on Empirical Evaluation of Adaptive Systems, Sonthofen, Germany (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johanneke Siljee
    • 1
  • Ivor Bosloper
    • 1
  • Jos Nijhuis
    • 1
  • Dieter Hammer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations