Measuring Component Adaptation

  • Antonio Brogi
  • Carlos Canal
  • Ernesto Pimentel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2949)


Adapting heterogeneous software components that present mismatching interaction behaviour is one of the crucial problems in Component-Based Software Engineering. The process of component adaptation can be synthesized by a transformation from an initial specification (of the requested adaptation) to a revised specification (expressing the actual adaptation that will be featured by the deployed adaptor component). An important capability in this context is hence to be able to evaluate to which extent an adaptor proposal satisfies the initially requested adaptation. The aim of this paper is precisely to develop different metrics that can be employed to this end. Such metrics can be fruitfully employed both to assess the acceptability of an adaptation proposal, and to compare different adaptation solutions proposed by different servers.


Component Adaptation Process Algebra Client Request Component Interface Client Action 
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.
    Allen, R., Garlan, D.: A formal basis for architectural connection. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 6(3), 213–249 (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bracciali, A., Brogi, A., Canal, C.: A formal approach to component adaptation. Journal of Systems and Software, Special Issue on Automated Component- Based Software Engineering (in press); A preliminary version of this paper was published in Arbab, F., Talcott, C. (eds.): COORDINATION 2002. LNCS, vol. 2315, pp. 88–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brogi, A., Canal, C., Pimentel, E.: Soft component adaptation. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS) 85(3) (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brogi, A., Canal, C., Pimentel, E.: On the specification of software adaptation. In: FOCLASA 2003, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS), vol. 90 (2003) (in press)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown, A.W., Wallnau, K.C.: The current state of CBSE. IEEE Software 15(5), 37–47 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campbell, G.H.: Adaptable components. In: ICSE 1999, pp. 685–686. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Canal, C., Pimentel, E., Troya, J.M.: Compatibility and inheritance in software architectures. Science of Computer Programming 41, 105–138 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cechich, A., Piattini, M., Vallecillo, A. (eds.): Component-Based Software Quality. LNCS, vol. 2693. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Di Pierro, A., Hankin, C., Wiklicky, H.: Approximate Non-Interference. In: CSFW 2002, pp. 3–17. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ducasse, S., Richner, T.: Executable connectors: Towards reusable design elements. In: Jazayeri, M. (ed.) ESEC 1997 and ESEC-FSE 1997. LNCS, vol. 1301, Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garlan, D., Allen, R., Ockerbloom, J.: Architectural mismatch: Why reuse is so hard. IEEE Software 12(6), 17–26 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gelernter, D., Carriero, N.: Coordination languages and their significance. Communications of the ACM 35(2), 97–107 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Inverardi, P., Tivoli, M.: Automatic synthesis of deadlock free connectors for COM/DCOM applications. In: ESEC/FSE 2001. ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jonsson, B., Larsen, K.G., Yi, W.: Probabilistic extensions of process algebras. In: Handbook of Process Algebra. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mili, R., et al.: Semantic distance between specifications. Theoretical Computer Science 247, 257–276 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Milner, R., Parrow, J., Walker, D.: A calculus of mobile processes. Journal of Information and Computation 100, 1–77 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Passerone, R., et al.: Convertibility Verification and Converter Synthesis: two faces of the same coin. In: Proc. of the Int. Conference on Computer-Aided Design. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vallecillo, A., Hernández, J., Troya, J.M.: New issues in object interoperability. In: Malenfant, J., Moisan, S., Moreira, A.M.D. (eds.) ECOOP 2000 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 1964, pp. 256–269. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wallnau, K., Hissam, S., Seacord, R.: Building Systems from Commercial Components. SEI Series in Soft. Engineering (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wermelinger, M., Fiadeiro, J.L.: Connectors for mobile programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(5), 331–341 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yellin, D.M., Strom, R.E.: Protocol specifications and components adaptors. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 19(2), 292–333 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Brogi
    • 1
  • Carlos Canal
    • 2
  • Ernesto Pimentel
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PisaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MálagaSpain

Personalised recommendations