1. A Model-Based Framework for Statically and Dynamically Checking Component Interactions (CALICO) Waignier, G., Sriplakich, P., Meur, A., and Duchien, L. 2008 Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems [4] Presented by Celal Ziftci CSE-294@UCSD-Fall’09 6-Nov-2009

2. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 2 Contents Introduction – Overview – Existing work What is the proposal? – Approach – Meta-models Running example Details on implementation Future work Discussion of the approach (vs. ours) Q & A

3. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 3 Contents Introduction – Overview – Existing work What is the proposal? – Approach – Meta-models Running example Details on implementation Future work Discussion of the approach (vs. ours) Q & A

4. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 4 Introduction: Overview (1/2) Interested in components and the specification of them and their interaction Architecture Description (AD) Models: for components and their interactions Common properties of interest in a system: – Structural – Behavioral – Dataflow – QoS Verification of the system from models: static & dynamic – Compatible – Incompatible – Partially compatible

5. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 5 Introduction: Overview (2/2) More on verification: must be done globally! So… What do we do with verification results? – Compatible – Incompatible – Partially compatible (hmm, tricky…)

6. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 6 Contents Introduction – Overview – Existing work What is the proposal? – Approach – Meta-models Running example Details on implementation Future work Discussion of the approach (vs. ours) Q & A

7. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 7 Existing work Some work on adding dynamic checks to do the verification of partially compatible points [1: Batistal ’05] Some work on using models at runtime to take snapshots, and then do validation on snapshot [2: Hein ‘07] Some work that inserts runtime assertions to running system to do validation [3: Jung]

8. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 8 Contents Introduction – Overview – Existing work What is the proposal? – Approach – Meta-models Running example Details on implementation Future work Discussion of the approach (vs. ours) Q & A

9. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 9 What is the proposal?: Approach A system that: – provides meta-models to specify the component based systems – includes a runtime system for deployment using models – provides a runtime to do verification of all properties, compatible, incompatible or partially compatible – provides feedback to the architecture design team during design time A system that can: – do static verification for those constraints that can be verified statically – do dynamic verification for those constraints that cannot be verified via static analysis

10. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 10 Contents Introduction – Overview – Existing work What is the proposal? – Approach – Meta-models Running example Details on implementation Future work Discussion of the approach (vs. ours) Q & A

11. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 11 What is the proposal?: Meta-models 4 types of AD meta-models are provided: – System structure – Structural contract – Behavioral contract – Dataflow contract

12. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 12 What is the proposal?: Meta-models 4 types of AD meta-models are provided: – System structure – Structural contract – Behavioral contract – Dataflow contract

13. TODO: Insert diagram [4]

14. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 14 What is the proposal?: Meta-models 4 types of AD meta-models are provided: – System structure – Structural contract – Behavioral contract – Dataflow contract

15. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 15 What is the proposal?: Meta-models 4 types of AD meta-models are provided: – System structure – Structural contract – Behavioral contract – Dataflow contract

16. TODO: insert picture [4]

17. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 17 What is the proposal?: Meta-models 4 types of AD meta-models are provided: – System structure – Structural contract – Behavioral contract – Dataflow contract

18. TODO: Insert picture [4]

19. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 19 Contents Introduction – Overview – Existing work What is the proposal? – Approach – Meta-models Running example Details on implementation Future work Discussion of the approach (vs. ours) Q & A

20. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 20 Running Example: PHR (1/4) French Personal Health Record system: provides health-care personnel information: X-rays, medications etc. Needs to: – Communicate heterogeneous information Small text files Huge (order of gigabytes) echographies – Communicate with heterogeneous devices PDAs with small screens using low bandwith GPRS Desktops with large screen monitors using gigabyte network connections

21. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 21 Running Example: PHR (2/4) [4]

22. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 22 Running Example: PHR (3/4) Control and dataflow for PDAClient, Server, Cache [4]

23. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 23 Running Example: PHR (4/4) Dataflow for the whole system [4]

24. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 24 Contents Introduction – Overview – Existing work What is the proposal? – Approach – Meta-models Running example Details on implementation Future work Discussion of the approach (vs. ours) Q & A

25. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 25 Details on implementation (1/2) [4]

26. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 26 Details on implementation (2/2) Different parts of the implementation – Application loader – Code instrumentation – Dynamic validation and feedback

27. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 27 Contents Introduction – Overview – Existing work What is the proposal? – Approach – Meta-models Running example Details on implementation Future work Discussion of the approach (vs. ours) Q & A

28. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 28 Future work Extensions to CALICO – New platform drivers – More meta-models for other type of properties/contracts (QoS)

29. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 29 Contents Introduction – Overview – Existing work What is the proposal? – Approach – Meta-models Running example Details on implementation Future work Discussion of the approach (vs. ours) Q & A

30. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 30 Discussion of the approach (vs. ours) (1/2) A system that is designed with this framework is not guaranteed to satisfy those constraints The validation/checking problem is spread onto different parts of the runtime Constraints are coupled with the running system (lifecycle issue)

31. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 31 Discussion of the approach (vs. ours) (2/2) Nice work on: – Automatic deployment – Automatic validation point generation from the models So, I asked myself these questions for our own approach…

32. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 32 Contents Introduction – Overview – Existing work What is the proposal? – Approach – Meta-models Running example Details on implementation Future work Discussion of the approach (vs. ours) Q & A

33. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 33 Q & A

34. CSE294@UCSD-Fall'09 34 References [1] Batista1, T., Joolia, A., Coulson, G.:Managing dynamic reconfiguration in component-based systems. In: Morrison, R., Oquendo, F. (eds.) EWSA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3527, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) [2] Hein, C., Ritter, T., Wagner, M.: System monitoring using constraint checking as part of model based system management. In: International Workshop Models@run.time (2007) [3] Jung, H., Rubio-Medrano, C.E.,Wong, W.E., Cheon, Y.: Architectural Assertions: Checking Architecrural Constraints at Run- Time [4] A Model-Based Framework for Statically and Dynamically Checking Component Interactions (CALICO), Waignier, G., Sriplakich, P., Meur, A., and Duchien, L. 2008 Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems