Advertisement

A Runtime Quality Architecture for Service-Oriented Systems

  • Daniel Robinson
  • Gerald Kotonya
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5364)

Abstract

System quality aspects such as dependability, adaptability to a changing runtime environment, and concerns such as cost and provider reputation, are increasingly important in a competitive software service market. Service-oriented system quality is not just a function of the quality of a provided service, but the interdependencies between services, the resource constraints of the runtime environment and network outages. This makes it difficult to anticipate how these factors might influence system behaviour, making it difficult to specify the right system environment in advance. Current quality management schemes for service-oriented systems are inadequate for ensuring runtime system quality as they focus on static service properties, rather than emergent properties. They also offer the consumer only limited control over the quality of service. This paper describes a novel consumer-centred runtime architecture that combines service monitoring, negotiation, forecasting and vendor reputation, to provide a self-managing mechanism for ensuring runtime quality in service-oriented systems.

Keywords

Service-Oriented Architecture Negotiation Monitoring Quality of Service Software Composition 

References

  1. 1.
    Turner, M., Budgen, D., Brereton, P.: Turning software into a service. Computer 36(10), 38–44 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Erl, T.: Service-Oriented Architecture: Concepts, Technology, and Design. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sommerville, I.: 31. In: Software Engineering, 8th edn. Addison Wesley, Reading (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lüders, F., Flemström, D., Wall, A.: Software component services for embedded real-time systems. In: Proc. Fifth Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice in Sweden, Västerås, Sweden, Mälardalen University, October 2005, pp. 123–128 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baresi, L., Ghezzi, C., Guinea, S.: Smart monitors for composed services. In: ICSOC 2004: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Service oriented computing, pp. 193–202. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoffman, B.: Monitoring, at your service. Queue 3(10), 34–43 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Milanovic, N., Richling, J., Malek, M.: Lightweight services for embedded systems. Wstfeus 00, 40 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Sullivan, J., Edmond, D., Hofstede, A.T.: What’s in a service? Towards accurate description of non-functional service properties. Distrib. Parallel Databases 12(2-3), 117–133 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Toma, I., Foxvog, D., Jaeger, M.C.: Modeling QoS characteristics in WSMO. In: MW4SOC 2006: Proceedings of the 1st workshop on Middleware for Service Oriented Computing (MW4SOC 2006), pp. 42–47. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Menascé, D.A., Ruan, H., Gomaa, H.: QoS management in service-oriented architectures. Perform. Eval. 64(7-8), 646–663 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Woodside, C.M., Menascé, D.A.: Guest editors’ introduction: Application-level QoS. IEEE Internet Computing 10(3), 13–15 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martin, D.L., et al.: Bringing semantics to web services: The OWL-S approach. In: Cardoso, J., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) SWSWPC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3387, pp. 26–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andrieux, A., et al.: Web services agreement specification (WS-Agreement), version 2006-09-07. Technical report, Global Grid Forum (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    O’Sullivan, J.: Towards a Precise Understanding of Service Properties. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., Boyd, C.: A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decis. Support Syst. 43(2), 618–644 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maximilien, E.M., Singh, M.P.: Toward autonomic web services trust and selection. In: ICSOC 2004: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Service oriented computing, pp. 212–221. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wishart, R., Robinson, R., Indulska, J., Josang, A.: SuperstringRep: reputation-enhanced service discovery. In: ACSC 2005: Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Australasian conference on Computer Science, pp. 49–57. Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ludwig, H., et al.: Web service level agreement (WSLA) language specification (2003), http://www.research.ibm.com/wsla/WSLASpecV1-20030128.pdf
  19. 19.
    Yan, J., et al.: Autonomous service level agreement negotiation for service composition provision. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 23(6), 748–759 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Czajkowski, K., Foster, I.T., Kesselman, C., Sander, V., Tuecke, S.: Snap: A protocol for negotiating service level agreements and coordinating resource management in distributed systems. In: Feitelson, D.G., Rudolph, L., Schwiegelshohn, U. (eds.) JSSPP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2537, pp. 153–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Benjamim, A.C., Sauvé, J., Cirne, W., Carelli, M.: Independently auditing service level agreements in the grid. In: Proceedings of the 11th HP OpenView University Association Workshop, HPOVUA (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baresi, L., Ghezzi, C., Guinea, S.: Towards self-healing service compositions. In: PRISE 2004, First Conference on the PRInciples of Software Engineering, Buenos Aires, Argentina (November 2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Menascé, D.A., Dubey, V.: Utility-based QoS brokering in service oriented architectures. ICWS 0, 422–430 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Li, H.: Automated E-business Negotiation: Model, Life Cycle and System Architecture. PhD thesis, University of Florida (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lock, R.: TRANSACT (Tool for Real-time Automated Negotiation of Secure Authorisation ContracTs). PhD thesis, Lancaster University (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wolski, R.: Dynamically forecasting network performance using the network weather service. Cluster Computing 1(1), 119–132 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meyer, B.: Applying “design by contract”. Computer 25(10), 40–51 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Robinson
    • 1
  • Gerald Kotonya
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing DepartmentLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations