Advertisement

Versioning and consistency for dynamically composed configurations

  • Bradley R. Schmerl
  • Chris D. Marlin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1235)

Abstract

Dynamically composed software systems are constructed as they execute. Although these systems are of increasing importance and arise in a number of application areas, configuration management tools typically do not provide much support for them. This paper presents progress towards providing enhanced configuration management techniques for dynamically composed systems. The paper commences with an example of a dynamically composed system, which is used to motivate the relevance of dynamically composed systems, and to highlight various design issues and requirements for configuration management in this domain. A model, and its associated notation DCDL, is then presented to describe particular aspects of the example. This model seamlessly integrates the notions of consistency, specified in terms of complete configurations, and version families, which are relevant to the incomplete configurations of crucial importance in understanding configurations of dynamically composed systems. DCDL is then used to provide insight into the requirements for configuration management tools for dynamically composed systems.

Keywords

Plain Image Viewer Object Configuration Management Version Family Consistency 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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. Adams and M. Solomon. An Overview of the CAPITL Software Development Environment. Software Configuration Management: ICSE SCM-4 and SCM-5 Workshops Selected Papers. Published as Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1005:1–34. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Bendix. An integrative model for configuration management and version control. Preprints of the Proceedings of the 5th Software Configuration Management Workshop (Seattle, Washington, USA), pages 259–66, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Breu. Algebraic Specification Techniques in Object Oriented Programming Environments. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 562. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Feldman. Make — a program for maintaining computer programs. Software: Practice and Experience, 9(3):255–65, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. E. Gantenbein. Dynamic Binding of Separately Compiled Objects Under Program Control. PhD thesis, published as Technical report 86-08. Department of Computer Science, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. A. Goguen, J. W. Thatcher, and E. G. Wagner. An initial algebra approach to the specification, correctness, and implementation of abstract data types. In R. Yeh, editor, Current trends in programming methodology, pages 80–149. Prentice-Hall. New Jersey, 1978.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Gosling and H. McGilton. The Java Language Environment: A White Paper. Sun Microsystems Computer Company, Mountain View, California, May 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. N. Habermann and D. E. Perry. Well Formed System Composition. Technical report CMU-CS-80-117. Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pensylvania, USA, 1980.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Heimbigner and A. L. Wolf. Post-Deployment Configuration Management. Software Configuration Management: ICSE'96 SCM-6 Workshop Selected Papers (Berlin, Germany). Published as Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1167:272–6. Springer, Berlin, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. Narayanaswamy and W. Scacchi. Maintaining Configurations of Evolving Software Systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-13(3):324–34, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. E. Perry. Version Control in the Inscape Environment. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering (Monterey, California), pages 142–9, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. E. Perry. System Compositions and Shared Dependencies. Software Configuration Management: ICSE'96 SCM-6 Workshop Selected Papers (Berlin, April 25–26). Published as Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1167:139–53. Springer, Berlin, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. J. Ransom. An Approach to Modelling Software Construction Systems and its Application to the Investigation of Mechanisms Intended to Enhance Software Reuse. PhD thesis. Department of Computer Science, The Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, 1997. In preparation.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. R. Schmerl and C. D. Marlin. Designing configuration management facilities for dynamically bound systems. Software Configuration Management: ICSE SCM-4 and SCM-5 Workshops Selected Papers (Seattle, Washington, USA). Published as Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1005:88–100. Springer Verlag, Berlin, May 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. R. Schmerl and C. D. Marlin. Consistency Issues in Partially Bound Dynamically Composed Systems. 1996 Australian Software Engineering Conference (Melbourne, Australia), pages 183–91. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alimitos, California, July 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. R. Schmerl. Designing Configuration Management Tools for Dynamically Composed Systems. PhD thesis. Department of Computer Science, The Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, 1997. In preparation.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B. R. Schmerl and C. D. Marlin. Modelling Dynamic Configurations to Guide Tool Design. Technical report 97-01. Department of Computer Science, Flinders University of South Australia, January 1997.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Wiebe. Generic Software Configuration Management: Theory and Design. PhD thesis, published as Technical Report 90-07-03. Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Zeller. A Unified Configuration Management Model. Technical report 95-03. Technical University of Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Zeller. Smooth operations with square operators — the version set model in ICE. Software Configuration Management: ICSE'96 SCM-6 Workshop Selected Papers (Berlin, Germany). Published as Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1167:8–30. Springer, Berlin, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bradley R. Schmerl
    • 1
  • Chris D. Marlin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe Flinders University of South AustraliaAdelaide

Personalised recommendations