guillaume waignier, anne-françoise le meur, laurence...

1

Software Architecture & Composition

Guillaume Waignier, Anne-Françoise Le Meur, Laurence Duchien Project-Team U. Lille 1/CNRS-INRIA

http://adam.lille.inria.fr

April 2009

2

Scientific context

Future applications will be multi-paradigms and will be deployed on multi-scale environments

New forms of complexity •  Applications should be adapted in the best way to exploit these

networks •  Need for reasoning on the environmental conditions to adapt the

software with a minimum of effort

Report: beyond the Horizon, thematic Group 6, FP7, Software Intensive Systems, 2006

2

3

3

ADAM’s challenge

Grid5000

Adaptive Deployment

LAN WiFi

Network

Adaptive distributed application design (UML, ADL, DSL)

Adaptive component frameworks for

distributed applications (Fractal, SCA, SOA)

Adaptation throughout

the software lifecycle

4

4

Software Models

FraSCAti Soleil FraSCAme TINAP

Software Systems

DeployWare

Services/Fractal Embedded/Fractal

4

CALICO CAPucine

5

Outline

Scientific context

Component AssembLy Interaction Control framewOrk 1. CALICO Framework [MODeLS 2008] 2. CALICO model-level

Unified framework for designing and analyzing application properties •  Structure design •  Contractual application specifications •  Contractual specifications composition

3.  CALICO platform-level

Conclusion and perspectives

6

Scientific context

7

Context

•  Software Architecture •  components or services

–  Visible external properties –  Interface, behavior

–  Relations –  assembly

•  Understandable (high level abstraction)‏ •  Construction (reuse)‏ •  Architecture Description Languages (ADLs)‏

C1 C2

C3

Abstract model

Execution model

8

1. Safe architecture •  Specify the application properties

•  Structure : constrain the connection between elements •  Behavior : express the workflow going in and out •  Dataflow : limit the allowed range of value of exchanged messages •  QoS : define the maximal response time, …

• Needs for Safe Architecture •  Specification of component properties (structural, behavioral, ...)‏ •  Identify violation of application properties in the assembly •  Analysis of the interaction compatibility between components

9

1. Illustrating example (PHR)‏

10

1. Illustrating example (PHR)‏

Security : structural property

11

1. Illustrating example (PHR)‏

Security : structural property Authentication : behavioral property

1

2

12

1. Illustrating example (PHR)‏

Security : structural property Authentication : behavioral property High reliability : dataflow property

data.size<100Mb

13

1. Illustrating example (PHR)‏

Security : structural property Authentication : behavioral property High reliability : dataflow property Reactivity : QoS property

Time<20s

14

1. Illustrating example (PHR)‏

How to help the architect to identify inconsistency?

Security : structural property Authentication : behavioral property High reliability : dataflow property Reactivity : QoS property

15

1. Problems

•  Existing static analysis tools are not suitable •  Handle a subset of application properties •  Are coupled with component or service models

How to provide a platform-independent approach supporting all kind of properties ?

16

2. Illustrating example (PHR)‏

PCclient

data2.size<2Mb

data1.size<3Gb data2=data1

assumption guarantee

PDAclient

Cache ImageServer

data2.size<4Gb Compatible Interaction

Partially Compatible Interaction (depends on runtime values)‏

Need to perform runtime debugging

17

2. Problems with existing tools

•  Existing tools are not suitable •  Break the continuity in the development process •  Add assertions in the application code •  Provide feedback at code level •  Lose relation between the runtime errors and the design concepts

•  Limited component platform support •  Lack of static analysis tools •  Lack of dynamic checking tools

To address these problems, we propose CALICO

18

Main results of CALICO: Component AssembLy Interaction Control framewOrk

1.  CALICO Framework [MODeLS 2008]

2.  CALICO model-level Unified framework for designing and analyzing application properties

•  Structure design •  Contractual application specifications •  Contractual specifications composition

3.  CALICO platform-level

19

CALICO Framework

20

1.  CALICO Framework

2.  CALICO model-level [QoSA2008] Unified framework for designing and analyzing application properties

•  Structure design •  Contractual application specifications •  Contractual specifications composition

3.  CALICO platform-level

21 Uniform approach for specifying contractual specifications

•  Based on the assume-guarantee paradigm [Abadi-Lamport93] •  Widely used in QoS •  assume(P) = application properties required by P from its environment •  guarantee(P) = application properties offered by P

•  assume(P) → guarantee(P)‏

•  Advantage of the assume-guarantee paradigm •  Can be composed to compute the specification of an assembly •  Can be analyzed statically

22

Application structure

Common elements in component and service models

•  Entity : computational element •  Component or service

•  Connector: interaction between entities •  Binding or partnerLink

•  Communication point : access point of an entity that allows it to communicate •  Port, interface or portType

•  Communication element : action performed to communicate •  Operation

•  Argument : element exchanged between entities •  Typed object or message

23

Application structure metamodel

24

Behavioral specification

Describe the workflow going in and out of the communication point

Assumption : expected behavior Guarantee : offered behavior

25

Assembly of entities

•  Create the assembly of entities •  Add connectors between entities •  Check the assembly

–  Need to compose the contractual specifications

Client GlobalSearch Access

26

Unified contract computation

•  Contract = composition of specifications •  C{P1 * P2} = SpecP1 ∘ SpecP2

–  Pi: participant i –  SpecPi : specification of Pi –  ∘ : compositional operator (associative, commutative)‏

•  Incremental computation •  Specification of an assembly computed from the contract of this assembly

–  Spec{P1 U P2} = f( C{P1 * P2} )‏

27

Contract composition order

•  Contract composition = tree •  Leaf : contractual specification written by the architect •  Node : contractual specification of a sub part of the architecture •  Root : contractual specification of the entire architecture

Client GlobalSearch Access

B1 B2 B3

B2,B3

B1,B2,B3

D1 D2 D3

D2,D3

D1,D2,D3

28

PHR example

29

Static interaction analysis

•  CALICO's interaction analysis tool •  Identify compatible, incompatible and partially compatible interaction •  Is independent of any component platform

•  Behavioral analysis •  Based on existing process algebras (CSP, FSP, ...)‏ •  Creating the global CFG by synchronizing CFGs

•  Dataflow analysis •  Based on partial program validation •  Forward propagation of the guarantees •  Backward propagation of the assumptions

30

PHR example

31

PHR example

Forward propagation

32

PHR example

Forward propagation Backward propagation

33

Insertion of validation points where runtime checks are needed

PHR example

Forward propagation Backward propagation

V

V

34

1.  CALICO Framework

2.  CALICO model-level Unified framework for designing and analyzing application properties

•  Structure design •  Contractual application specifications •  Contractual specifications composition

3.  CALICO platform-level

35

Adding the missing functionality

•  Lack of services for capturing runtime context •  Few platforms are able to capture the required runtime information (trace)‏ •  Need to add the missing functionality for capturing runtime information

→ CALICO's code instrumentation tool •  Instruments automatically the application code

–  Capturing the trace : 3 aspects –  send a trace, receive a trace, propagate the trace between components

•  Generates and weaves aspects accordingly to the models •  Is independent of any platform

36

Performing dynamic checking

•  Loading of the running application •  Generates the sequence of system construction operations •  Translates them into calls to platform-specific API

•  Need to complete the validation of partially compatible interactions •  Check the runtime information

→ CALICO's dynamic validation tool •  Receives runtime information •  Analyzes it at the model-level •  Provides design feedback to the architect •  Is independent of any component platform

37

Fixing the errors

38

Conclusion

39

Towards full runtime....and adaptation

-> reification of the whole runtime system •  manage the co-evolution of the abstract model and the running model

Abstract model

Execution model

-  keep coherent structural modifications -  on the ADL -  on the running system

-  keep an updated view of the specified properties and current contracts

40

Conclusion

•  Model-level •  Describes the software architecture (structure + properties) using models •  Performs static interaction analysis •  Is platform independent

•  Platform-level •  Holds the running system •  Contains tools for loading the system •  Adds missing services for capturing runtime information

•  Couple model-level with platform-level •  Capture runtime information at the model level •  Locate model elements leading to runtime errors

http://calico.gforge.inria.fr

41

Questions ?

42

Towards full runtime....and adaptation

Calico : a framework that offers

- Coherent abstract models/views of an application from its construction to its execution/adaptation/evolution •  Structure •  Properties •  Deployment •  Execution context

-  Not platform specific

-  Verification supports (static and dynamic)

-  Adaptation policies and mechanisms

43

7. Future work

•  Handle more platforms •  OpenCOM, SCA, Web Services, ...

•  Support more kinds of properties and analyses •  Behavioral protocol, QoS

http://calico.gforge.inria.fr

44

ADAM Adaptive Distributed Applications and Middleware

•  Joint project-team INRIA, Univ. Lille 1 & CNRS since January 2008 •  2 Prof., 2 MCF, 1 CR, 1 MCF (secondment INRIA –Paris 6), 7 Ph.D students, 8 engineers

Scientific challenge •  Definition of an Adaptation Model throughout the Software Lifecycle

•  Adaptive Component Frameworks for Middleware & Services •  Self-configurable components •  A framework for composing, deploying, and executing heterogeneous components

•  Distributed Applications Design for Adaptive Platforms •  Adaptive languages for software architectures •  Context-aware modelling for context-aware platforms

Scientific community animation •  25 program committees, 6 ws organisations, Board of GDR GPL

Scientific production •  10 articles, 41 papers, 2 book chapters

Software production •  OW2 ecosystem: Suite Fractal - FAC, AOKell, Fraclet, Fractal Explorer, FraSCAti •  INRIA ecosystem: Spoon, CALICO, DeployWare/FDF

Industrial transfer •  DeployWare/FDF in JOnAS and JASMINe - Bull & in PEtALS - EBM WebSourcing

* PME

45

2. Problems

•  Existing static analysis tools are not suitable •  Handle a subset of application properties •  Are coupled with component or service models

46

2. Problems

•  Existing static analysis tools are not suitable •  Handle a subset of application properties •  Are coupled with component or service models

47

Aspects as first-class entities

47

object JAC, Spoon…

component AOKell

architecture FAC, TranSAT

48

Aspects in architecture & component FAC A programming model that merges AOSD

and CBSE

Notion of an aspect domain in a software architecture

aspect binding + aspect component + dynamic un/weaving

AOKell Engineering technical services for Fractal component-based applications •  http://fractal.ow2.org/aokell •  http://fac.gforge.inria.fr •  France Telecom •  [CBSE06, ARES 07, IJCAT 08] •  [PhD Pessemier 07]

48

49 Adaptation throughout the software life cycle

49

FraSCAti Soleil FraSCAme TINAP

Software Systems

DeployWare

Adaptation at each step Development process - FAROS [Waignier] - SPL Cappucino [Parra] - Soleil [Plsek]

Transformation tools - Spoon [Noguera]

Architecture framework - CALICO [Waignier]

Runtime platforms - FraSCAti [Collective work] - FraSCAme [Romero] - Soleil [Plsek] - TINAP [Loiret]

Deployment - DeployWare [Dubus]

Maintenance - DECOR [Moha]

Formal Model Fractal/Alloy

Services/Fractal Embedded/Fractal

CALICO CaDSPL

50 Framework for software architecture evolution

•  Collaborations INRIA/Triskell, I3S/Rainbow

•  ANR FAROS •  http://calico.gforge.inria.fr •  [Models 08, QoSA 08] •  [Ph.D Waignier expected end 09]

50

CALICO Component AssembLy Interaction Control framewOrk Model-based framework 2 levels: Model & PF

51

FraSCAti Marriage of SCA and Fractal

m

Client Server s m s

SCA Fractal

FraSCAti

Reflective SCA components

SOA for Fractal

Reflective introspection, management, reconfiguration

Reflective components Components for SOA

52

Loading the system

•  Loading of the running application •  Generates the sequence of system construction operations •  Translates them into calls to platform-specific API

→ CALICO's application loader tool •  Driven by the model-level specifications •  Direct Mapping of the common structural elements

–  Create/remove components/connectors •  Mapping of validation point into adaptor component

–  Generates adaptor component forwarding calls –  Intercepts the runtime information –  Generic approach for creating interceptors