Managing the Evolution of Distributed and Interrelated Components

  • Sundararajan Sowrirajan
  • André van der Hoek
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2649)


Software systems are increasingly being built by integrating preexisting components developed by different, geographically distributed organizations. Each component typically evolves independently over time, not only in terms of its functionality, but also in terms of its exposed interfaces and dependencies on other components. Given that those other components may also evolve, creating an application by assembling sets of components typically involves managing a complex web of evolving dependencies. Traditional configuration management systems assume a form of centralized control that simply does not suffice in these situations. Needed are new configuration management systems that span multiple organizations, operate in a distributed and decentralized fashion, and help in managing the consistent evolution of independently developed, inter-related sets of components. A critical aspect of these new configuration management systems is that they must respect the different levels of autonomy, privacy, and trust that exist among different organizations. In this paper, we introduce TWICS, an early example of such a new configuration management system. Key aspects of TWICS are that it maintains traditional configuration management functionality to support the development of individual components, but integrates policy-driven deployment functionality to support different organizations in evolving their inter-related components.


Object Management Group Configuration Management Defense Advance Research Project Agency Defense Advance Research Project Agency Interrelate Component 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    E.C. Bailey, Maximum RPM. Red Hat Software Inc., 1997Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Berliner. CVS II: Parallelizing Software Development. Proceedings of the USENIX Winter 1990 Technical Conference, 1990: p. 341–352Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Burrows and I. Wesley, Ovum Evaluates Configuration Management. Ovum Ltd., Burlington, Massachussetts, 1998Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ComponentSource,, 2002
  5. 5.
    R. Conradi and B. Westfechtel, Version Models for Software Configuration Management. ACM Computing Surveys, 1998. 30(2): p. 232–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. de Jonge. Source Tree Composition. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Software Reuse, 2002Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L.G. DeMichiel, L.U. Yalcinalp, and S. Krishnan, Enterprise Java Beans Specification, Version 2.0,, 2001
  8. 8.
    J. Estublier and R. Casalles, The Adele Configuration Manager, in Configuration Management, W.F. Tichy, Editor. 1994: p. 99–134Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P.H. Feiler. Configuration Management Models in Commercial Environments. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 1991Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.S. Hall, D.M. Heimbigner, and A.L. Wolf. A Cooperative Approach to Support Software Deployment Using the Software Dock. Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering, 1999: p. 174–183Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    InstallShield,, 2001
  12. 12.
    M. Larsson and I. Crnkovic. Configuration Management for Component-based Systems. Proceedings of the Tenth International Workshop on Software Configuration Management, 2001Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M.D. McIlroy, Mass Produced Software Components. Software Engineering: A Report on a Conference Sponsored by the NATO Science Committee, P. Naur and B. Randell (eds.), 1968: p. 138–155Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. Mens, A State-of-the-Art Survey on Software Merging. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2002. 28(5): p. 449–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    NetDeploy,, 2001
  16. 16.
    J. Oberleitner. The Component Workbench: A Flexible Component Composition Environment. M.S. Thesis, Technische Universität Vienna, 2001Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Object Management Group, ed. The Common Object Request Broker: Architecture and Specification. 2001, Object Management GroupGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    D.S. Platt, Introducing Microsoft Dot-Net. Microsoft, Redmond, 2001Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Red Hat,, 2001
  20. 20.
    J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch, The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, 1998Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. Szyperski, Component Software — Beyond Object-Oriented Programming. Addison-Wesley / ACM Press, 1998Google Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    W.F. Tichy, RCS, A System for Version Control. Software — Practice and Experience, 1985. 15(7): p. 637–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24., Subversion,, 2002
  25. 25.
    Tivoli Systems,, 2001
  26. 26.
    V. Traas and J. van Hillegersberg, The Software Component Market on the Internet: Current Status and Conditions for Growth. Software Engineering Notes, 2000. 25(1): p. 114–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    E. Tryggeseth, B. Gulla, and R. Conradi. Modelling Systems with Variability Using the PROTEUS Configuration Language. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Configuration Management: ICSE SCM-4 and SCM-5 Workshops Selected Papers, 1995: p. 216–240Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. van der Hoek, et al. Software Release Management. Proceedings of the Sixth European Software Engineering Conference together with the Fifth ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, 1997: p. 159–175Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    D. Wiborg Weber. Requirements for an SCM Architecture to Enable Componentbased Development. Proceedings of the Tenth International Workshop on Software Configuration Management, 2001Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sundararajan Sowrirajan
    • 1
  • André van der Hoek
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information and Computer ScienceUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations