skip to main content
10.1145/1985793.1985862acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Interface decomposition for service compositions

Authors Info & Claims
Published:21 May 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

Service-based applications can be realized by composing existing services into new, added-value composite services. The external services with which a service composition interacts are usually known by means of their syntactical interface. However, an interface providing more information, such as a behavioral specification, could be more useful to a service integrator for assessing that a certain external service can contribute to fulfill the functional requirements of the composite application.

Given the requirements specification of a composite service, we present a technique for obtaining the behavioral interfaces - in the form of labeled transition systems - of the external services, by decomposing the global interface specification that characterizes the environment of the service composition. The generated interfaces guarantee that the service composition fulfills its requirements during the execution. Our approach has been implemented in the LTSA tool and has been applied to two case studies.

References

  1. D. Alrajeh, J. Kramer, A. Russo, and S. Uchitel. Learning operational requirements from goal models. In Proc. of ICSE'09, pages 265--275. IEEE, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. L. Baresi, E. Di Nitto, and C. Ghezzi. Towards Open-World Software: Issues and Challenges. IEEE Computer, 39:36--43, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Bertolino, P. Inverardi, P. Pelliccione, and M. Tivoli. Automatic synthesis of behavior protocols for composable Web-services. In Proc. of ESEC/FSE '09, pages 141--150. ACM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. D. Bianculli, C. Ghezzi, and C. Pautasso. Embedding continuous lifelong verification in service life cycles. In Proc. of PESOS 2009, pages 99--102. IEEE, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. D. Bianculli, C. Ghezzi, P. Spoletini, L. Baresi, and S. Guinea. A guided tour through SAVVY-WS: a methodology for specifying and validating Web service compositions. In Advances in Software Engineering, volume 5316 of LNCS, pages 131--160. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. I. Brückner. Slicing concurrent real-time system specifications for verification. In Proc. of IFM 2007, volume 4591 of LNCS, pages 54--74. Springer, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. M. Caporuscio, P. Inverardi, and P. Pelliccione. Compositional verification of middleware-based software architecture descriptions. In Proc. of ICSE'04, pages 221--230. IEEE, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. S. C. Cheung and J. Kramer. Checking safety properties using compositional reachability analysis. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 8(1):49--78, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. C. Damas, B. Lambeau, P. Dupont, and A. van Lamsweerde. Generating annotated behavior models from end-user scenarios. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 31(12):1056--1073, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. H. Foster. WS-Engineer 2008: A service architecture, behaviour and deployment verification platform. In Proc. of ICSOC 2008, volume 5364 of LNCS, pages 728--729. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. H. Foster, S. Uchitel, J. Magee, and J. Kramer. Model-based verification of Web service compositions. In Proc. of ASE 2003, pages 152--163. IEEE, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. X. Fu, T. Bultan, and J. Su. Conversation protocols: a formalism for specification and verification of reactive electronic services. Theor. Comput. Sci., 328(1--2):19--37, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. D. Giannakopoulou and J. Magee. Fluent model checking for event-based systems. In Proc. of ESEC/FSE-11, pages 257--266. ACM, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. D. Giannakopoulou, C. Păsăreanu, and H. Barringer. Assumption generation for software component verification. In Proc. of ASE 2002, pages 3--12, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. P. Inverardi, P. Pelliccione, and M. Tivoli. Towards an assume-guarantee theory for adaptable systems. In Proc. of SEAMS 2009, pages 106--115. IEEE, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. JavaPathFinder. http://babelfish.arc.nasa.gov/trac/jpf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. I. Krka, Y. Brun, G. Edwards, and N. Medvidović. Synthesizing partial component-level behavior models from system specifications. In Proc. of ESEC/FSE'09, pages 305--314. ACM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. S. Labbe, J.-P. Gallois, and M. Pouzet. Slicing communicating automata specifications for efficient model reduction. In Proc. of ASWEC'07, pages 191--200. IEEE, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. N. Lohmann, O. Kopp, F. Leymann, and W. Reisig. Analyzing BPEL4Chor: Verification and participant synthesis. In Proc. of WS-FM 2007, volume 4937 of LNCS, pages 46--60. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. D. Lorenzoli, L. Mariani, and M. Pezzé. Automatic generation of software behavioral models. In Proc. of ICSE'08, pages 501--510. ACM, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. J. Magee and J. Kramer. Concurrency: State Models And Java Programs. John Wiley & Sons, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. B. Metzler, H. Wehrheim, and D. Wonisch. Decomposition for compositional verification. In Proc. of ICFEM'08, volume 5256 of LNCS, pages 105--125. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. OASIS. Web Service Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0 Specification, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Z. Qiu, X. Zhao, C. Cai, and H. Yang. Towards the theoretical foundation of choreography. In Proc. of WWW 2007, pages 973--982. ACM, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. G. Salaün and T. Bultan. Realizability of choreographies using process algebra encodings. In Proc. of IFM 2009, volume 5423 of LNCS, pages 167--182. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. S. Uchitel, G. Brunet, and M. Chechik. Synthesis of partial behavior models from properties and scenarios. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 35(3):384--406, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. A. W. Valentin Dallmeier, Christian Lindig and A. Zeller. Mining object behavior with ADABU. In Proc. of WODA 2006, pages 17--24. ACM, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Interface decomposition for service compositions

                    Recommendations

                    Comments

                    Login options

                    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                    Sign in
                    • Published in

                      cover image ACM Conferences
                      ICSE '11: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering
                      May 2011
                      1258 pages
                      ISBN:9781450304450
                      DOI:10.1145/1985793

                      Copyright © 2011 ACM

                      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                      Publisher

                      Association for Computing Machinery

                      New York, NY, United States

                      Publication History

                      • Published: 21 May 2011

                      Permissions

                      Request permissions about this article.

                      Request Permissions

                      Check for updates

                      Qualifiers

                      • research-article

                      Acceptance Rates

                      Overall Acceptance Rate276of1,856submissions,15%

                      Upcoming Conference

                      ICSE 2025

                    PDF Format

                    View or Download as a PDF file.

                    PDF

                    eReader

                    View online with eReader.

                    eReader