Co-ordination Adaptors: The Evolution of Component-Based Distributed Systems

  • Phyo Kyaw
  • Cornelia Boldyreff
  • Jie Xu


In analysing the evolution of distributed systems, the scale of the components has increased, the requirements for different domains have become complex and a variety of different distributed component models have emerged. As traditional components turn into distributed enterprise components, there is no clear distinction between distributed objects, models, and functionality of the existing components. Many modern distributed component models provide facilities for developing new distributed systems by merging functionality and distributed components with their own communication protocols. In this paper, we analyse and discuss the architectural and implementation problems with modern distributed systems. We provide a model that allows software engineers to develop and integrate new and existing legacy components by separating concerns of the components and co-ordination. We have identified different services of the system by distinguishing between functional services, distributed services and internal services. We have also introduced the use of explicit co-ordination components, which serves as a bridge between functional services and modern distributed middleware models. In this way software engineers can design and implement more flexible, scaleable and independent components based on different services. We believe that our model can simplify implementation of distributed systems as well as serving as a bridge between modern ORBs and many legacy components.


Software Engineer Fault Tolerance Communication Protocol Configuration Manager Trading Service 
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. Alder, R. M. (1995). “Emerging Standards for Component Software.” Computer IEEE 28(3): 68–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bosch, J. (1996). Composition through Superimposition. Special Issues in Object-Oriented Programming: Workshop Reader of the 10th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming ECOOP ′96, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  3. Deri, L. (1997). A Component-based Architecture for Open, Independently Extensible Distributed Systems. Center of Network Services for University of Pisa. Pisa, Italy., University of Pisa: 245.Google Scholar
  4. Gamma, E. and Helm, R. et al. (1995). Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Google Scholar
  5. Garlan, D. and Allen, R. et al. (1994). “Architecture Mismatch: Why Reuse Is So Hard.” IEEE Software 12(6): 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hölzle, U. (1993). Integrating Independently-Developed Components in Object-Oriented Languages. ECOOP, Sprnger Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Küçük, B. and Alpdemir, M.N. et al. (1998). Customizable Adapters For Blackbox Components The 12th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP ′98), Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  8. Leeb, A. (1996). A flexible object architecture for component software. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. Massachasetts, Massachasetts Institure of Technology: 33.Google Scholar
  9. Pritchard, J. (1999). COM and CORBA Side by Side: Architectures, Strategies, and Implementations, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  10. Szyperski, C. (1998). Component Software Beyond Object-Oriented Programming, Addison Wesley Longman Limited.Google Scholar
  11. Vigder, M.R. and Dean, J. (1996). COTS Software Integration: State of the art. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute for Information Technology.Google Scholar
  12. Wang, G. and Ungar, L. et al. (1999). “Component Assembly for 00 Distributed Systems.” IEEE COMPUTER 32(7): 8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phyo Kyaw
  • Cornelia Boldyreff
  • Jie Xu

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations