Skip to main content

Decentralised Evaluation of Temporal Patterns over Component-Based Systems at Runtime

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 8997))

Abstract

Self-adaptation allows systems to modify their structure and/or their behaviour depending on the environment and the system itself. Since reconfigurations must not happen at any but in suitable circumstances, guiding and controlling dynamic reconfigurations at runtime is an important issue. This paper contributes to two essential topics of the self-adaptation—a runtime temporal properties evaluation, and a decentralization of control loops. It extends the work on the adaptation of component-based systems at runtime via policies with temporal patterns by providings (a) specific progressive semantics of temporal patterns and (b) a decentralised method which is suitable to deal with temporal patterns of component-based systems at runtime. The implementation with the GROOVE tool constitutes a practical contribution.

This work has been partially funded by the Labex ACTION, ANR-11-LABX-0001-01.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    By definition in [16], this conjunction is in \(CP\).

  2. 2.

    FTPL stands for TPL (Temporal Pattern Language) prefixed by ‘F’ to denote its relation to Fractal-like components and to first-order integrity constraints over them.

  3. 3.

    Implemented as controllers in CSP\(\Vert \)B, Fractal, FraSCAti, etc.

  4. 4.

    For relations involving two components (like Delegate or Parent) we consider that only the parent component is aware of the relation. For the Binding relation, only the component owning the required (or client) interface is aware of the binding.

  5. 5.

    wrt. the semantics.

  6. 6.

    In the case where there are two or more equally urgent formulae, \(\varphi \) is sent to a monitor determined by an arbitrary order with the function \(Mon:\mathcal {M} \times 2^{AE} \rightarrow \mathcal {M}\). \(Mon(M_i,AE^\prime )=M_{j_{min}}\) s.t \(j_{min} = min(j \in [1,n] \backslash \{i\} | AE^\prime \cap AE_j \not = \varnothing )\).

  7. 7.

    The formula to evaluate as well as its sub-formulae evaluated at the current state.

  8. 8.

    This allows all monitors to keep a history of \(|\mathcal {M}|+1\) configurations.

References

  1. de Lemos, R., et al.: Software engineering for self-adaptive systems: a second research roadmap. In: de Lemos, R., Giese, H., Müller, H.A., Shaw, M. (eds.) Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems. LNCS, vol. 7475, pp. 1–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: Software Engineering, pp. 411–420 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kouchnarenko, O., Weber, J.-F.: Adapting component-based systems at runtime via policies with temporal patterns. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Liu, Z., Xue, J. (eds.) FACS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8348, pp. 234–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Bauer, A., Falcone, Y.: Decentralised LTL monitoring. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Méry, D. (eds.) FM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7436, pp. 85–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Ghamarian, A.H., de Mol, M., Rensink, A., Zambon, E., Zimakova, M.: Modelling and analysis using GROOVE. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Trans. 14, 15–40 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: Module checking. Inf. Comput. 164, 322–344 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Bozzelli, L., Murano, A., Peron, A.: Pushdown module checking. In: Sutcliffe, G., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3835, pp. 504–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Aminof, B., Legay, A., Murano, A., Serre, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Pushdown module checking with imperfect information. Inf. Comput. 223, 1–17 (2013)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Comparing LTL semantics for runtime verification. Int. J. Logic Comput. 20, 651–674 (2010)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim, M., Lee, I., Shin, J., Sokolsky, O., et al.: Monitoring, checking, and steering of real-time systems. ENTCS 70, 95–111 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bruneton, E., Coupaye, T., Leclercq, M., Quéma, V., Stefani, J.B.: The fractal component model and its support in java. Softw. Pract. Exper. 36, 1257–1284 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Schneider, S., Treharne, H.: CSP theorems for communicating B machines. Formal Asp. Comput. 17, 390–422 (2005)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Seinturier, L., Merle, P., Rouvoy, R., Romero, D., Schiavoni, V., Stefani, J.B.: A component-based middleware platform for reconfigurable service-oriented architectures. Softw. Practice Experience 42, 559–583 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Garavel, H., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: Large-scale distributed verification using cadp: Beyond clusters to grids. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 296, 145–161 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dormoy, J., Kouchnarenko, O., Lanoix, A.: Runtime verification of temporal patterns for dynamic reconfigurations of components. In: Arbab, F., Ölveczky, P.C. (eds.) FACS 2011. LNCS, vol. 7253, pp. 115–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Hamilton, A.G.: Logic for Mathematicians. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1978)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Dormoy, J., Kouchnarenko, O., Lanoix, A.: When structural refinement of components keeps temporal properties over reconfigurations. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Méry, D. (eds.) FM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7436, pp. 171–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Dormoy, J., Kouchnarenko, O., Lanoix, A.: Using temporal logic for dynamic reconfigurations of components. In: Barbosa, L.S., Lumpe, M. (eds.) FACS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6921, pp. 200–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Kouchnarenko, O., Weber, J.F.: Decentralised Evaluation of Temporal Patterns over Component-based Systems at Runtime (2014). Long version of the present paper available at: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01044639

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-François Weber .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kouchnarenko, O., Weber, JF. (2015). Decentralised Evaluation of Temporal Patterns over Component-Based Systems at Runtime. In: Lanese, I., Madelaine, E. (eds) Formal Aspects of Component Software. FACS 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8997. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15317-9_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15317-9_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-15316-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-15317-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics