Decentralized Workflow Coordination through Molecular Composition

  • Héctor Fernández
  • Cédric Tedeschi
  • Thierry Priol
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7221)


The dynamic composition of loosely-coupled, distributed and autonomous services is one of the new challenges of large scale computing. Hence, service composition systems are now a key feature of service-oriented architectures. However, such systems and associate languages strongly rely on centralized abstractions and runtime, what appears inadequate in the context of emerging platforms, like (federation) of clouds that can shrink or enlarge dynamically. It appears crucial to promote service composition systems with a proper support for autonomous, decentralized coordination of services over dynamic large-scale platforms. In this paper, we present an approach for the autonomous coordination of services involved in the execution of a workflow of services, relying on the analogy of molecular composition. In this scope, we trust in the chemical programming model, where programs are seen as molecules floating and interacting freely in a chemical solution. We build a library of molecules (data and reactions) written with HOCL, a higher-order chemical language, which, by composition, will allow a wide variety of workflow patterns to be executed. A proof of concept is given through the experimental results of the deployment of a software prototype implementing these concepts, showing their viability.


Service Composition Molecular Composition Business Process Execution Language Software Prototype Tuple Space 
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. 1.
    Grid’5000 (June 2011),
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: YAWL: yet another workflow language. Information Systems 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alonso, G., Mohan, C., Agrawal, D., Abbadi, A.E.: Functionality and limitations of current workflow management systems. IEEE Expert 12 (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Banâtre, J., Fradet, P., Radenac, Y.: Generalised multisets for chemical programming. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 16(4), 557–580 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Banâtre, J.P., Priol, T., Radenac, Y.: Chemical Programming of Future Service-oriented Architectures. Journal of Software 4(7), 738–746 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buhler, P.A., Vidal, J.M.: Enacting BPEL4WS specified workflows with multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on WSABE (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Charfi, A., Mezini, M.: AO4BPEL: an aspect-oriented extension to BPEL. World Wide Web 10, 309–344 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dittrich, P., Ziegler, J., Banzhaf, W.: Artificial chemistries – a Review. Artificial Life 7, 225–275 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fernández, H., Priol, T., Tedeschi, C.: Decentralized Approach for Execution of Composite Web Services using the Chemical Paradigm. In: 8th International Conference on Web Services (ICWS 2010), pp. 139–146. IEEE, Miami (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fernández, H., Tedeschi, C., Priol, T.: Self-coordination of Workflow Execution Through Molecular Composition. Research Report RR-7610, INRIA (May 2011),
  11. 11.
    Gelernter, D., Carriero, N.: Coordination languages and their significance. Commun. ACM 35(2), 96–107 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laliwala, Z., Khosla, R., Majumdar, P., Chaudhary, S.: Semantic and rules based Event-Driven dynamic web services composition for automation of business processes. In: Services Computing Workshops, SCW 2006, pp. 175–182 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leitner, P., Rosenberg, F., Dustdar, S.: Daios: Efficient dynamic web service invocation. IEEE Internet Computing 13(3), 72–80 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Montagut, F., Molva, R.: Enabling pervasive execution of workflows. In: International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing, p. 10 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nicola, R.D., Ferrari, G., Pugliese, R.: KLAIM: a kernel language for agents interaction and mobility. IEEE Transactions On Software Engineering 24 (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    OASIS: Web services business process execution language, (WS-BPEL 2.0) (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sonntag, M., Gorlach, K., Karastoyanova, D., Leymann, F., Reiter, M.: Process space-based scientific workflow enactment. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management 5(1), 32–44 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taylor, I.J., Deelman, E., Gannon, D.B., Shields, M., Slominski, A.: Adapting BPEL to scientific workflows. In: Workflows for e-Science, pp. 208–226 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Der Aalst, W., Ter Hofstede, A., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.: Workflow patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Viroli, M., Zambonelli, F.: A biochemical approach to adaptive service ecosystems. Information Sciences, 1–17 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wutke, D., Martin, D., Leymann, F.: Facilitating Complex Web Service Interactions through a Tuplespace Binding. In: Meier, R., Terzis, S. (eds.) DAIS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5053, pp. 275–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Héctor Fernández
    • 1
  • Cédric Tedeschi
    • 2
  • Thierry Priol
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIAFrance
  2. 2.IRISAUniversity of Rennes 1 / INRIAFrance

Personalised recommendations