Communication requirements for team automata
Ter Beek M H, Carmona J, Hennicker R, Kleijn J
Responsiveness Communication Requirements Internal action Team automata Receptiveness Machine theory Synchronisation types Object-oriented programming (Computer science) Màquines Teoria de [INFO]Computer Science [cs] External action Multi-component systems [INFO.INFO-NI]Computer Science [cs]/Networking and Internet Architecture [cs.NI] Input action Programació orientada a l'objecte (Informàtica) :Informàtica::Informàtica teòrica [Àrees temàtiques de la UPC] Compatibility Output action Communication requirement
Compatibility of components is an important issue in the quest for systems of systems that guarantee successful communications, free from message loss and indefinite waiting for inputs. In this paper, we investigate compatibility in the context of systems consisting of reactive components which may communicate through the synchronised execution of common actions. We model such systems in the team automata framework, which does not impose any a priori restrictions on the synchronisation policy followed to combine the components. We identify a family of representative synchronisation types based on the number of sending and receiving components participating in synchronisations. Then, we provide a generic procedure to derive, for each synchronisation type, requirements for receptiveness and for responsiveness of team automata that prevent that outputs are not accepted and inputs are not provided, respectively. Due to the genericity of our approach w.r.t. synchronisation policies, we can capture compatibility notions for various multi-component system models known from the literature.
2. J. Carmona and J. Kleijn. Compatibility in a multi-component environment. Theor. Comput. Sci., 484:1-15, 2013.
3. N. A. Lynch and M. R. Tuttle. Hierarchical Correctness Proofs for Distributed Algorithms. In PODC'87, pages 137-151. ACM, 1987.
4. N. A. Lynch and M. R. Tuttle. An Introduction to Input/Output Automata. CWI Quarterly, 2(3):219-246, 1989. https://ir.cwi.nl/pub/18164.
5. C. A. Ellis. Team Automata for Groupware Systems. In GROUP'97, pages 415- 424. ACM, 1997.
6. M. H. ter Beek, C. A. Ellis, J. Kleijn, and G. Rozenberg. Synchronizations in Team Automata for Groupware Systems. Comput. Sup. Coop. Work, 12(1):21-69, 2003.
7. L. de Alfaro and T. A. Henzinger. Interface Automata. In ESEC/FSE'01, pages 109-120. ACM, 2001.
8. L. de Alfaro and T. A. Henzinger. Interface-Based Design. In Engineering Theories of Software Intensive Systems, volume 195 of NATO Science Series, pages 83-104. Springer, 2005.
9. L. Brim, I. Cerná, P. Vareková, and B. Zimmerova. Component-Interaction Automata as a Verification-Oriented Component-Based System Specification. ACM Softw. Eng. Notes, 31(2), 2006.
10. K. G. Larsen, U. Nyman, and A. Wąsowski. Modal I/O Automata for Interface and Product Line Theories. In ESOP'07, volume 4421 of LNCS, pages 64-79. Springer, 2007.
11. S. S. Bauer, P. Mayer, A. Schroeder, and R. Hennicker. On Weak Modal Compatibility, Refinement, and the MIO Workbench. In TACAS'10, volume 6015 of LNCS, pages 175-189. Springer, 2010.
Metrics
Back to previous page
@inproceedings{oai:it.cnr:prodotti:372126,
title = {Communication requirements for team automata},
author = {Ter Beek M H and Carmona J and Hennicker R and Kleijn J},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-59746-1_14},
year = {2017}
}
0000-0002-2930-6367
