Web Services Orchestrations Evolution: A Merge Process for Behavioral Evolution

  • Sébastien Mosser
  • Mireille Blay-Fornarino
  • Michel Riveill
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5292)


Services Oriented Architectures preach loosely-coupled services and high–level composition mechanisms, using for example Web Services to define services and Orchestrations to compose them. But orchestration evolutions imply modification at source code level. This article shows how the orchestration paradigm itself can be used to support evolution of Web Services Orchestrations through a behavioral merge process. Using the same model to express orchestrations and evolutions, we expose formally and illustrate in this contribution a merging process helping Wsoa administrators to deal with behavioral evolutions.


Service Orient Architecture Precedence Rule Behavioral Evolution Merging Process Business Process Execution Language 
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.
    MacKenzie, M., Laskey, K., McCabe, F., Brown, P., Metz, R.: Reference Model for Service Oriented Architecture 1.0. Technical Report wd-soa-rm-cd1, OASIS (February 2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peltz, C.: Web services orchestration and choreography. Computer 36(10) (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W3C: Web service glossary. Technical report (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mens, T., Wermelinger, M., Ducasse, S., Demeyer, S., Hirschfeld, R., Jazayeri, M.: Challenges in software evolution. In: IWPSE 2005: Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 13–22. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lehman, M.M.: Laws of software evolution revisited. In: Montangero, C. (ed.) EWSPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1149, pp. 108–124. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fowler, M.: Refactoring: improving the design of existing code. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buckley, J., Mens, T., Zenger, M., Rashid, A., Kniesel, G.: Towards a taxonomy of software change. Journal on Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 17(5), 309–332 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jordan, D., Evedmon, J., Alves, A., Arkin, A., Askary, S., Barreto, C., Bloch, B., Curbera, F., Ford, M., Goland, Y., Guízar, A., Kartha, N., Liu, K., Khalaf, R., Konig, D., Marin, M., Mehta, V., Thatte, S., Van der Rijn, D., Yendluri, P., Yiu, A.: Web services business process execution language version 2.0. Technical report, OASIS (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stickel, M.E.: A unification algorithm for associative-commutative functions. J. ACM 28(3), 423–434 (1981)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nemo, C., Blay-Fornarino, M., Kniesel, G., Riveill, M.: Semantic Orchestrations Merging - Towards Composition of Overlapping Orchestrations. In: Filipe, J. (ed.) 9th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2007), Funchal, Madeira (June 2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mens, T., Van Der Straeten, R.: Incremental resolution of model inconsistencies. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Schobbens, P.-Y. (eds.) WADT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4409, pp. 111–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Merks, E., Eliersick, R., Grose, T., Budinsky, F., Steinberg, D.: The Eclipse Modeling Framework. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joffroy, C., Pinna-Déry, A.M., Renevier, P., Riveill, M.: Architecture Model For Personalizing Interactive Service-Oriented Application. In: 11th Iasted International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications (SEA 2007), Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, Iasted, pp. 379–384. ACTA Press (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Douence, R.: A restricted definition of AOP. In: Gybels, K., Hanenberg, S., Herrmann, S., Wloka, J. (eds.) European Interactive Workshop on Aspects in Software (EIWAS) (September 2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Charfi, A., Mezini, M.: Aspect-oriented web service composition with AO4BPEL. In (LJ) Zhang, L.-J., Jeckle, M. (eds.) ECOWS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3250, pp. 168–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Courbis, C., Finkelstein, A.: Weaving aspects into web service orchestrations. In: ICWS, pp. 219–226. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Blay-Fornarino, M., Charfi, A., Emsellem, D., Pinna-Déry, A.M., Riveill, M.: Software interaction. Journal of Object Technology (ETH Zurich) 3(10), 161–180 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reddy, Y.R., Ghosh, S., France, R.B., Straw, G., Bieman, J.M., McEachen, N., Song, E., Georg, G.: Directives for composing aspect-oriented design class models. In: Rashid, A., Akşit, M. (eds.) Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development I. LNCS, vol. 3880, pp. 75–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laddad, R.: AspectJ in Action: Practical Aspect-Oriented Programming. Manning (July 2003) ISBN-10: 1930110936, ISBN-13: 978-1930110939Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klein, J., Fleurey, F., Jézéquel, J.M.: Weaving multiple aspects in sequence diagrams. In: Rashid, A., Akşit, M. (eds.) Transactions on AOSD III. LNCS, vol. 4620, pp. 167–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sébastien Mosser
    • 1
  • Mireille Blay-Fornarino
    • 1
  • Michel Riveill
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Nice Sophia – Antipolis, Cnrs, I3s Laboratory, Rainbow team, Sophia AntipolisFrance

Personalised recommendations