Component Reconfiguration in the Presence of Conflicts

  • Roberto Di Cosmo
  • Jacopo Mauro
  • Stefano Zacchiroli
  • Gianluigi Zavattaro
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7966)


Components are traditionally modeled as black-boxes equipped with interfaces that indicate provided/required ports and, often, also conflicts with other components that cannot coexist with them. In modern tools for automatic system management, components become grey-boxes that show relevant internal states and the possible actions that can be acted on the components to change such state during the deployment and reconfiguration phases. However, state-of-the-art tools in this field do not support a systematic management of conflicts. In this paper we investigate the impact of conflicts by precisely characterizing the increment of complexity on the reconfiguration problem.


Component Type Transition Component Reachability Problem Vector Addition System Upward Closure 
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.
    Abate, P., Di Cosmo, R., Treinen, R., Zacchiroli, S.: Dependency solving: a separate concern in component evolution management. J. Syst. Software 85, 2228–2240 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdulla, P.A., Cerans, K., Jonsson, B., Tsay, Y.K.: General decidability theorems for infinite-state systems. In: LICS, pp. 313–321. IEEE (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clayberg, E., Rubel, D.: Eclipse Plug-ins, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Di Cosmo, R., Mauro, J., Zacchiroli, S., Zavattaro, G.: Component reconfiguration in the presence of conflicts. Tech. rep. Aeolus Project (2013),
  5. 5.
    Di Cosmo, R., Trezentos, P., Zacchiroli, S.: Package upgrades in FOSS distributions: Details and challenges. In: HotSWup 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Di Cosmo, R., Zacchiroli, S., Zavattaro, G.: Towards a formal component model for the cloud. In: Eleftherakis, G., Hinchey, M., Holcombe, M. (eds.) SEFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7504, pp. 156–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Finkel, A., Schnoebelen, P.: Well-structured transition systems everywhere! Theoretical Computer Science 256, 63–92 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischer, J., Majumdar, R., Esmaeilsabzali, S.: Engage: a deployment management system. In: PLDI 2012: Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 263–274. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hewson, J.A., Anderson, P., Gordon, A.D.: A declarative approach to automated configuration. In: LISA 2012: Large Installation System Administration Conference, pp. 51–66 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kanies, L.: Puppet: Next-generation configuration management. The USENIX Magazine 31(1), 19–25 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lipton, R.J.: The Reachability Problem Requires Exponential Space. Research report 62, Department of Computer Science, Yale University (1976)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    OSGi Alliance: OSGi Service Platform, Release 3. IOS Press, Inc. (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rackoff, C.: The covering and boundedness problems for vector addition systems. Theoret. Comp. Sci. 6, 223–231 (1978)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Di Cosmo
    • 1
  • Jacopo Mauro
    • 2
  • Stefano Zacchiroli
    • 1
  • Gianluigi Zavattaro
    • 2
  1. 1.Sorbonne Paris Cité, PPS, UMR 7126, CNRSUniv Paris DiderotParisFrance
  2. 2.Focus TeamUniv of Bologna/INRIABolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations