A Framework for Seamless Interoperation of Heterogeneous Distributed Software Components

(Project Review – November 3, 2003)

Funded by the DoD and Office of Naval Research Funded by the DoD and Office of Naval Research under the CIP/SW Programunder the CIP/SW Program

Participants

Rajeev R. RajeAndrew M. Olson

Barrett R. Bryant Carol C. Burt

Mikhail Auguston

http://www.cs.iupui.edu/uniFrame

3

Past and Present Student Participants

R. Berbeco N. Gupta R. NeidermyerG. Brahnmath J. Hansome R. PuljalaR. Bulusu Z. Huang M. RidzalS. Carpenter A. Islam P. ShahF. Cao A. Kumari C. SunA. Crespi P. Kambhampati K. TummalaV. Cheekati B. Lee S. UnderwoodB. Devaraju S. Liu C. VargheseG. Fragkos S. Mugala X. WuJ. Freeman P. Mysore C. YangP. Gopalakrishna N. Nayani W. Zhao

4

Agenda

9.00 am – 9.45 am Overview of UniFrame – R. Raje

9.45 am – 11.45 am Project Briefings: UniFrame Process – A. Olson Resource Discovery Mechanism – R. Raje Architecture-based Interoperability – B. Bryant UniFrame Quality Framework – M. Auguston UniFrame and Transition – C. Burt

11.45 am – 12.00 pm Concluding Remarks – R. Raje

12.05 pm – 1.30 pm Lunch/Informal Student Poster Presentations-- A. Crespi, P. Gopalakrishna, N. Gupta, P. Mysore, C. Sun, W. Zhao

UniFrame Overview

Rajeev R. Raje

6

“Explore innovative new approaches to representing knowledge of distributed software components at their interface with respect to their bindings, their protocols, and their internal constraints.”

“Develop a logical framework to reason effectively and efficiently about software component knowledge to enable safe and secure distributed interoperation.”

CIP/SW – Topic #7 Heterogeneous Distributed Systems

7

Heterogeneous Distributed Systems(CIP/SW Kickoff Meeting [Marsh, 2001])

MotivationAbility to deal with heterogeneity is essentialNetwork centric => distributed, cooperative functionality

ChallengesMediation across environments Stability and Reliability

State of the ArtHomogeneous components and middleware environment Manual searching for components and handcrafting of bridgesLimited consideration of quality of service requirementsLabor intensive, error-prone and difficult to validate

8

Vision of UniFrame

Automate the process of integrating heterogeneous

components to create distributed systems that

conform to quality requirements

9

Current Objective

Create a Framework that will enable a seamless interoperation of heterogeneous distributed components

DirectionsProcess for Distributed System GenerationRepresentation and Interoperation of ComponentsTechniques for Reasoning about QualityValidation through Experimentation

10

Key Research Issues

Architecture-based Interoperability (UAB & IUPUI)Automation, standardization, mappings and tools

Distributed Resource Discovery (IUPUI)Specification, publication, distribution, selection

Validation of Quality Requirements (NPS & IUPUI) Vocabulary and associated metrics, composition, monitoring

Main Challenge: HeterogeneityMain Challenge: Heterogeneity

11

Related WorkArchitecture-based Interoperability

MDA, GP, IMPACT, System Architect, ABLE, Connector Taxonomy, Proteus, SOFA/DCUP, SOA

Distributed Resource DiscoveryJini, CORBA Trader, Ninja, InfoSpheres, GRID, UDDI, LDAP

Validation of Quality RequirementsQuO, QML, QoS-A, OMG RFP, ISO, Middleware QoS, Dyninst

12

Assumptions

Distributed system construction by integrating independently deployed heterogeneous components

Accepted knowledgebase with explicit quality requirementsPresence of distributed component repositoriesKnown certification mechanisms for quality attributes

Advantages of automation

Increased reliabilityShorter delivery time

13

Component Search

ModifiedQuery

System Integrator

Yes

Query

No

Selected Components

AssembledSystem

Distributed Resource Discovery

ComponentDeployment Component

Quality Measures

Component Developer

Standards

UniFrame Knowledgebase

Quality ValidationSystem Deployment (End)

Domain Expert (Start)

UniFrame Solution

14

Connection to BAA“Explore innovative new approaches to representing knowledge

of distributed software components....”

Multi-level component specification Interoperable discovery mechanismUniFrame knowledgebase

“Develop a logical framework to reason effectively and efficiently about software component knowledge….”

Model driven automationQuality of Service frameworkUnifying system monitoring techniques

Quality assurance for heterogeneous distributed Quality assurance for heterogeneous distributed integrations through the UniFrame process integrations through the UniFrame process

15

Accomplishments & Scientific MeritsArchitecture-based Interoperability

Unified Approach• UniFrame Process• Model driven automation of glue and wrapper software • Interoperation of heterogeneous components having QoS

requirements

Distributed Resource DiscoveryUniFrame Resource Discovery Mechanism

• Meta-model based approach for multi-level specification • Proactive advertisement and identification of components

Validation of Quality RequirementsQuality of Service Framework

• Development of a QoS catalog• Unifying system monitoring techniques

16

Benefits to CIP/SW

System Development• UniFrame process, supported by tools, will enable semi-

automatic distributed system assembly from components.

Interoperability • Standards-based technology will be enhanced to achieve

seamless integration of heterogeneous components.

System Quality• Semi-automated system assembly with integrated

validation metrics will improve system quality.

17

Impact on EducationEnriching Student Research Experience

Inter- and intra-university collaborationsProficiency with prevalent state-of-the-artParticipation in professional forums

Impact on CurriculumIncorporation of research material into courses at IUPUI, UAB, NMSU and NPS

Computing Infrastructure EnhancementCreation of Heterogeneous Computing Laboratories at IUPUI, UAB and NMSU

Invited Presentations Academic institutions, industrial forums and standards organizations

18

MetricsProcess for Distributed System Generation

Unified approach for constructing a distributed system, which satisfies QoS requirements, from heterogeneous components

UniFrame Knowledgebase

Representation and Interoperation of Components

Unified Meta-component Model

Standards-based techniques for mappings

Techniques for Reasoning about Quality

QoS vocabulary and metrics

Validation of dynamic system compositions

Validation through Experimentation

System Generation Case Studies

19

Project Statistics

Awards & HonorsKeynote Address, Student AwardsNominations, Showcasing

PhD Awarded1 + 6 (Progress)

MS Awarded10 + 14 (Progress)

Currently PlacedU Of Bristol, UKMicrosoft, Britannia, Irwin, Praxair, US Pacific Fleet, IU

Number of Students4 PhD, 17 MS (FTE)3 PhD, 7 MS, 3 BS

(10 Women students)

PublicationsBook Chapter

• 1 Pending

Journal• 3, 2 Pending, 3 Preparation

37 Conference/Workshops

6 Technical Reports

Presentations• 23 Invited, 37 Participated

PrototypesSystem Constructor, QoS Catalog

Discovery Service

Glue and Wrapper Generator

System Monitors

20

Project Statistics

Object Management Group

• Presentations/discussions with Task Forces

• Participation in RFP activities

Software Engineering Research Center

• Presentations to Industrial Partners

2AB, Incorporated• Headhunter Technology

(orb2)

• Model-Driven Access Control (iLock)

Computer Sciences Corporation/ IAC-EA SIG

• Business Line Architecture Pilot Project

Possible Transitions

21

Project Interactions

Michigan State University

Charles University, Czech Republic

University of Maribor, Slovenia

Lancaster University, UK

Stryon Incorporated

Jadavpur University, India

IIT-Bombay, India

University of Edinburgh, UK

Software Engineering Research CenterObject Management Group

Funding Agencies

Organizations

Currently Funded Grants from ARO and DoJFuture Proposals to NSF, ARO, IBM, Homeland Security, State of Indiana

22

Project Endorsements

Richard Soley, PhD – President & CEO Object Management Group

“As more and more organizations adopt Model Driven Architecture, continuing research becomes critical in several areas, especially debugging, performance management and automation. UniFrame's area of research is one of the critical success factors for realization of the MDA vision, and we strongly support it and unreservedly recommend it continues.”

Craig Rodrigues – Distributed Systems & Logistics BBN Technologies

“I was very excited to see that you are looking at QoS and MDA. QoS specification using open standards notation and modeling is a void that needs to be filled.”

23

Project Endorsements

John Dodd – Principal Consultant, CSC Co-chair, IAC-EA SIG

“Business Line Hub will include both common commercial server and portal elements …….. along with a series of business line service standards from the (Uniframe-[19]) with the Unified Meta-component Models and approach for distributed Computing, along with Visual and generative modeling capabilities.”

(from Business Line Architecture and Integration Summary Concept Level White PAPER, March 2003)

Naufal Khan – Vice President, Engineering, Stryon Inc.

“The .NET interoperability-related research findings of the UniFrame team have resulted in the enhancement of our product, iHUB. This is an example of the research-industry interactions and we believe that research projects, such as UniFrame, will continue to positively effect the industrial world.”

24

Plans for OptionsYear IV

Enhancement of UniFrame Knowledgebase

Establish guidelines for standardizationFacilitate automation

Incorporation of Abstract Connector Architecture

Define Platform Independent Models for managing heterogeneity

Extension of QoS FrameworkImprove QoS assurance

Exploration of Alternate Discovery Techniques

Provide optimized component discovery

Year VInteractions with Standards

Leverage existing standardsInfluence the evolution of standards

Case StudiesValidate research results using more complex scenarios

Technology TransitionReduce the cost of introducing research results into commercial products

25

Project Briefings

26

UniFrame Process – An Overview

Andrew M. Olson

27

UniFrame Process

Knowledgebase

Distributed System Constructor

28

UniFrame KnowledgebaseCreated by experts

Hierarchical business line architectureStandards-basedCategorized by features

Mapping to design models (component-based)Service-oriented hierarchy

Realizes MDA mapping of Platform Independent Models to Platform Specific Models

Facilitates interoperability

29

Example

Document Management System

User access point, User validator, Document manager

Standard manager of documents

Manager with extended persistence support

30

Document Management System: Business Reference Model

DM

SDM DDM

Legend:

DM: Document Manager

SDM: Standard Document Manager

DDM: Deluxe Document Manager

31

Document Management System: Service Reference Model

Legend:

DT: Document TerminalVS: Validation ServerDS: Document Server

context Standard Document System

inv: technology =‘.NET’ or technology = ‘CORBA’

1..* 1..*

DT

VS DS

32

Given requirements for a DCS,finds a design specification in the knowledgebase,

collects the specified component implementations,

integrates them into the designed DCS,

tests against the requirements (white & black box).Supports iterative, incremental development

Overview of System Constructor

33

Discover

Component Specs.

Decompose

DCSComponent

classes

DCS ClassCompose with wrapper & glue

MatchFound

Fail

Insert event traces

DCS Design Specification

Fail

Pass

Test

Test Plan

Requirements

Knowledgebase

Components on the Network

Construction Process

34

Salient Features

Increases product quality throughuse of well-tested designs and componentsautomation in construction and testing

Decreases development time throughuse of predefined domain and design modelsautomation

35

Questions???

UniFrame Resource Discovery Mechanism

Rajeev R. Raje

37

UniFrame Resource Discovery Mechanism

Unified Meta-component Model (UMM)Component• Specification

Service• Quality attributes, selection

Infrastructure• Registration, publication, discovery

38

ComponentsHeterogeneous and distributed

Adhere to the standardized knowledgebase

Code + UMM specificationQuality assurance through the “design by multi-level contract”

• [Beugnard, et al IEEE/Computer 1999]

UMM specification includes• Inherent attributes, functional attributes, non-

functional attributes, cooperative attributes, auxiliary attributes, deployment attributes, creation attributes

39

Example of UMM Specification

Component Name: Validation ServerDomain Name: Document Management

System Name: Document ManagerInformal Description: Provides validation

service.Computational Attributes:

a) Inherent Attributes: ID, Version, Author, Date, Validity, Atomicity, Registration, Model

b) Functional Attributes: Purpose, Algorithm, Complexity,

Syntactic Contract, Behavioral Contract, Synchronization

Contract, Technology, Expected Resources, Design Patterns, Known Usages, Aliases

Cooperation Attributes:

Pre-processing and Post-processing Collaborators

Auxiliary Attributes:

Mobility, Security, Fault-tolerance

Quality of Service Attributes:

Qos Metrics, QoS Level, Cost, Effect of Environment, Effect of usage patterns

Deployment Attributes: N/A

Creational Attributes: Atomic

40

Service

Well-defined concept of the application logicBasic composable abstractionNeed for assured levels of service

Functional and QoSEmphasis on QoS and its validation

Platform independent QoS catalog• Description, Measurement, Classification, Behavior,

and Composition of QoS Parameters• Assist component developer and system integrator

41

Infrastructure

UniFrame Resource Discovery Service (URDS)Hierarchical, Proactive, Interoperable, Decentralized

URDS ConstituentsActive RegistriesHeadhunters and Meta-repositoriesInternet Component Broker

• Domain Security Manager, Query Manager, Adapter Manager and Link Manager

42

Internet Component Broker

AuthenticationQuery

.NET RMI CORBA

Adapter Components

Proactive Discovery

Domain Security Manager Query Manager Link Manager Adapter Manager

UniFrame Resource Discovery Service

43

URDS Key IssuesRegistration

Model specific entitiesUMM specification

Publication

Headhunters

Discovery

Query ProcessingQuery Transmission AlgorithmsFault Handling Algorithms

44

Salient Features

Meta-model based technique

Quality assurance through multi-level specification and QoS validation

Platform independent QoS catalog

Distributed, proactive, hierarchical and interoperable discovery service

45

Questions???

Architecture-based Interoperability – Glue & Wrapper Construction

Barrett R. Bryant

47

Glue & Wrapper Construction

UniFrame Knowledgebase

Glue and Wrapper Constructor

48

KnowledgebaseBusiness and Technology domain model requirements

• Component type hierarchy • Associated Rules expressed in Two-Level Grammar

ConstructorInputs

• Discovered components• Knowledgebase

Outputs• Glue and Wrapper code

Construction Process

49

Two-Level Grammar (TLG)Invented by van Wijngaarden for specifying syntax and operational semantics

Consists of two CFGs – type and function definitions

Extended for object orientation

Used here to indicate rules of code generation for component integrations

Integrated with VDM (Vienna Development Method) tools for UML modeling, Java and C++ code generation

50

Glue & Wrapper Construction

Technology Domain Model

Proxy server

Proxy client

Bridge driver

Business Domain Model

RMI Document Terminal (DT)

CORBA Validation Server (VS)

TLG specification for RMI DT

TLG specification for CORBA VS

51

TLG Rules for System Constructiongenerate system from ClientUMM and ServerUMM : ClientOperations := ClientUMM get operations, ServerOperations := ServerUMM get operations, OperationMapping := map ClientOperations into ServerOperations, ComponentModel := ServerUMM get component model, generate java code for OperationMapping using ComponentModel.

52

TLG Rules – CORBA Wrappergenerate java code OperationMapping using corba : CorbaPackageName := OperationMapping get corba package

name, CorbaObjectClass := OperationMapping get corba object type, ClassName := OperationMapping get class name, JavaClassName := Java || ClassName, CorbaObjectName := object || ClassName, SetUpCode := ComponentModel generate java code, Operations := generate java code for OperationMapping, return import CorbaPackageName . * ; public class JavaClassName { private CorbaObjectClass CorbaObjectName ; public void init () { // initialize CORBA client module SetUpCode } Operations }.

53

CORBA Method QoS Instrumentation

generate java code for OperationName1 ArgumentList1 ReturnType maps to OperationName2 ArgumentList2 ReturnType : JavaReturnType := java type of ReturnType, JavaArgumentList := list all Argument from ArgumentList1 mapped by function java argument of Argument is JavaArgument, JavaArgumentListDefinition := separate JavaArgumentList by , , OperationCall := generate java code for OperationName2 ArgumentList1

ReturnType, return public JavaReturnType OperationName1

(JavaArgumentListDefinition ) { EventTrace.setBeginTime(); OperationCall EventTrace.setEndTime(); EventTrace.calculateResponseTime(); } .

54

ExampleInputstoreDocument (Document doc) → corbaStore (Document doc)

deleteDocument (Document doc) → corbaDelete (Document doc)

Outputimport corbaDocumentServer.* ;public class JavacorbaDocumentServer { private corbaDocumentServer objectcorbaDocumentServer; public void init () { // initialize CORBA client module

… } public void storeDocument (Document doc) { return objectcorbaDocumentServer.corbaStore(doc); } …}

55

Salient Features

TLG class hierarchy provides a means for expressing multiple levels of component abstractions

TLG rules provide for validation of feature and component compositions

TLG rules provide code generation necessary for bridging component models and QoS instrumentation

56

Questions???

UniFrame Quality Framework – Event Grammar Approach

Mikhail Auguston

58

UniFrame QoS Framework

Development of a QoS catalog

Creation and application of unifying system monitoring techniques

To develop unifying principles for program monitoring activities.

To apply these principles for the validation of dynamic QoS parameters.

To develop and experiment with different techniques for implementing these principles.

59

Program Behavior ModelsProgram monitoring activities can be specified in a uniform way using program behavior models based on the event notion.

An event corresponds to any detectable action, e.g., subroutine call, message passing, etc. An event corresponds to a time interval.

Two partial order binary relations are defined for events: precedence and inclusion.

An event has attributes, such as, type, duration, program state at beginning or end of the event and value.

60

Program Behavior ModelsEvent grammar specifies the constraints on configurations of events generated at run time (axioms, or “lightweight semantics” of the target language).

Some axioms are generic, e.g., transitivity.

A PRECEDES B and B PRECEDES C A PRECEDES C

A IN B and B IN C A IN C

61

Example of Event Grammarex_prog:: ex_stmt *ex_stmt:: ex_assignmt | ex_read_stmt | …ex_assignmt:: eval_expr destination

ex_prog

ex_assignmt

eval_expr destination

PRECEDES

IN

Example of an event trace

62

Program MonitoringMonitoring activities: assertion checking, profiles, performance measurements, dynamic QoS metrics, visualization, debugging queries, intrusion detection

Program monitoring can be specified in terms of computations over event traces.

We employ the language, FORMAN, to specify computations over event traces (based on event patterns and aggregate operations over events).

63

Example of Dynamic QoS metricsTurn-around Time

transaction is an event type for Validation Server. request-validation is a single request transaction event.The FORMAN formula specifies the measurement of the turn-around time for validation request:

FOREACH a: transaction FROM execute_document_systemSAY (“Turn-around time for a validate transaction is”

SUM [b: request-validation from a APPLY b.duration]/ CARD[request-validation FROM a])

64

Example of Dynamic QoS metrics

Capacity

A FORMAN behavior model captures concurrent execution elegantly. Concurrent events of the type request may appear inside the event session without being under the PRECEDES relation.

FOREACH a: session FROM ex_progSAY (“Capacity for a session “ a “is “ CARD[request FROM a]/ a.duration)

65

Salient FeaturesUnifying framework for program monitoring based on precise behavior models and event trace computations

Computations on the event traces can be implemented in a nondestructive way via automatic instrumentation of the source code or even of the executables (Dyninst approach).

Can specify generic trace computations, such as, bug detection, dynamic QoS metrics, profiles and visualization.

Both functional and non-functional requirements can be monitored.

An alternative approach to aspect-oriented paradigm

Validity of the approach has been shown by creating prototypes for different languages, such as, Pascal, C and Unicon.

66

Questions???

UniFrame and Technology Transition

Carol C. Burt

68

Technology Transition

Identify and Drive Relevant StandardsModel Driven ArchitectureInteroperability Infrastructure

Identify Opportunities and Encourage Transition to Commercial Vendors

Open-Source Commercial VendorsDefense Contractors

Interoperability solutions will not endure unless they are incorporated in standards and implemented by vendors

69

Identify and Drive Standards

OMG: Model Driven ArchitectureFormation of MDA Vision

• Architecture Board Technical Whitepaper• Model Driven Architecture Guide

Model Driven Analysis and Design• UML and Meta-Object Facility alignment• UML Profiles for Quality of Service, Testing,

Systems Engineering, Enterprise Distributed Object Computing, CORBA Components, and Enterprise Application Integration

70

Identify and Drive Standards

OMG: MDAQuality of Service Catalog

• Platform Independent QoS catalog • Parameters used to generate interfaces (static QoS)• Parameters used to generate instrumentation

(dynamic QoS)• Related Services

– Load Balancing– Instrumentation and Dynamic Metrics

71

Identify and Drive StandardsOMG: Interoperability Infrastructure

Internet Component Broker• Leveraged “lessons learned” in development of

ORBs• Considered existing standard protocols, component

mappings and component adapters• Explored architecture of existing bridging standards

UniFrame Resource Discovery Service• Leveraged Naming/Trading, Interface Repository • Extended for Implementation Repository• Considered Federation and Replication Architectures

72

Commercial Transitions

Commercial Vendor FocusInteroperable and Pro-active registries

• UniFrame Resource Discovery – Intelligent Searching

Web Services• WSDL/SOAP to IDL open-source implementation

Quality of Service• Open-Source Interceptors for Instrumentation• QoS Catalog as a Platform Independent Model • Model Driven Access Control Standards• Load-Balancing Standards

73

Commercial Transitions

Defense Contractor FocusDynamic Multi-National Coalition: Shared Operational Picture

• Dynamic integration of heterogeneous platforms

Information Assurance & Trusted Platform• Model Driven Access Control

Quality of Service• Instrumentation and Metrics

74

Identified Transition Targets 2AB, Inc.BBN TechnologiesComputer Sciences CorporationPromia SystemsStyron, Inc.

Commercial Transitions

BoeingLockheed MartinMercuryMITRERaytheon

75

Questions???

76

Concluding Remarks

Rajeev R. Raje

77

SummaryResults achieved so far have created a

foundation for realizing the vision of UniFrame

“Automate the process of integrating heterogeneous components to create distributed systems that conform to quality requirements”

Unified Approach• Process, Model Driven technique for automation

UniFrame Resource Discovery Mechanism• Multi-level specification, Proactive, Interoperable

Quality of Service Framework• Vocabulary and associated metrics, Unifying system

monitoring technique

78

Lessons LearnedIdentification of the most critical research topics was possible only after a detailed exploration.

Defining appropriate abstractions and platform independent models required extensive investigation.

Educational Students’ appreciation of research experience

Group InteractionsDistributed organizationBudgetary restrictions

79

Future DirectionsEnhancement of UniFrame knowledgebase

Incorporation of abstract connector architecture

Extensions of QoS framework

Investigation of alternate discovery techniques

Interactions with standards

Case studies

Technology transitions

Many more….

80

Thank You

http://www.cs.iupui.edu/uniFrame