Dynamic Reconfiguration of Application Logic During Application Migration

  • Holger Klus
  • Björn Schindler
  • Andreas Rausch
Part of the Human-Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)


During migration of an application from a source to a target device, its application logic often has to be adapted to the new situation. The new situation can for instance be characterized by different hardware resources or a different usage context . Therefore, the application logic has to be adapted automatically to the new context in order to provide the most suitable behaviour before and after migration. We consider application logic that consists of components which interact with each other through well-defined interfaces. In order to adapt the behaviour of the application logic, components can be added, removed or replaced. In this chapter we introduce a concept which enables the dynamic reconfiguration of component-based applications based on context information during the migration process. Our concept enables a technology independent specification of adaptation behaviour. Furthermore, we support the specification of an application without referencing application components directly. In that way it is possible to integrate new components into applications that were not known during application development time.


Open Open Component Instance User User Require Interface Reconfiguration Time 
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.


  1. Aksit, M., Choukair, Z.: Dynamic, adaptive and reconfigurable systems overview and prospective vision. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems. ICDCSW’03: Providence, Rhode Island, USA, pp. 84–89, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, 19–22 May 2003Google Scholar
  2. Cámara, J., Canal, C., Salaün, G.: Behavioural self-adaptation of services in ubiquitous computing environments. In: Müller, H.A., Magee, J. (eds.) SEAMS’09: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems. Vancouver, Canada, pp. 28–37, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, 18–19 May 2009Google Scholar
  3. Floch, J., Hallsteinsen, S., Stav, E., Eliassen, F., Lund, K., Gjorven, E.: Using architecture models for runtime adaptability. IEEE Softw. 23(2), 62–70 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Friedberg, S.A.: Transparent reconfiguration requires a third-party connect (No. TR 220). Rochester, New York 14627 (1987)Google Scholar
  5. Grondin, G., Bouraqadi, N., Vercouter, L.: Component reassembling and state transfer in madcar-based self-adaptive software. In: Paige, R.F., Meyer, B. (eds.) Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Objects, Components, Models and Patterns, vol. 11, pp. 258–277. 46th International Conference, TOOLS EUROPE 2008, Zurich, Switzerland, Springer 30 June–4 July 2008Google Scholar
  6. Kramer, J.: Configuration programming: a framework for the development of distributable systems. In: Proceedings of the 1990 IEEE International Conference on Computer Systems and Software Engineering. Tel-Aviv, Israel, pp. 374–385. Los Alamitos, 8–10 May 1990Google Scholar
  7. Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Dynamic configuration for distributed systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 11(4), 424–436 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kramer, J., Magee, J.: The evolving philosophers problem: dynamic change management. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 16(11), 1293–1306 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Loke, S.: Context-aware pervasive systems: architectures for a new breed of applications. Auerbach Publications, Boston (2007)Google Scholar
  10. Martin, D., Burstein, M., Mcdermott, D., Mcillraith, S., Paolucci, M., Sycara, K., Mguiness, D.L., Sirin, E., Srinivasan, N.: Bringing semantics to web services with OWL-S. World Wide Web 10(3), 243–277 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Magee, J., Kramer, J., Sloman, M.: Constructing distributed systems in conic. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 15(6), 663–675 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Magee, J., Kramer, J., Sloman, M., Dulay, N.: (1990) An overview of the REX software architecture. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on Future Trends of Dis-tributed Computing Systems. Cairo, Egypt, pp. 396–402. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, 30 Sept–2 Oct 1990Google Scholar
  13. Magee, J., Dulay, N., Eisenbach, S., Kramer, J.: Specifying distributed software architectures. In: Schäfer, W., Botella P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th European Software Engineering Conference, ESEC’95. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 989, pp. 137–153. Sitges, Spain. Springer, Berlin, 25–28 Sept 1995Google Scholar
  14. Maia, M.E.F., Rocha, L.S., Andrade, R.M.C.: Requirements and challenges for building service-oriented pervasive middleware. In: McCann, J.A., Lauria, M. (eds.) ICPS’09: Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Pervasive Services. London, UK, pp. 93–102. ACM, New York, 13–17 July 2009Google Scholar
  15. Newmarch, J.: Jan newmarch’s guide to Jini technologies. (2006)
  16. Niebuhr, D.: Dependable dynamic adaptive systems—Approach, model, and infrastructrue. PhD thesis, Clausthal University of Technology (to be published 2010)Google Scholar
  17. Object Management Group (OMG): Trading object service specification. (2000)
  18. Object Management Group: Unified modeling language: superstructure, version 2.2. (2009)
  19. Roman, D., Keller, U., Lausen, H., Bruijn, J., Lara, R., Stollberg, M., Polleres, A., Feier, C., Bussler, C., Fensel, D.: Web service modeling ontology. Appl. Ontol. 1(1), 77–106 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holger Klus
    • 1
  • Björn Schindler
    • 2
  • Andreas Rausch
  1. 1.University of ClausthalClausthalGermany
  2. 2.Clausthal University of TechnologyClausthal-ZellerfeldDenmark

Personalised recommendations