Quick Adaptability Checks

02/26/2010 © 2009 UNIVERSITÄT ROSTOCK

Quick Adaptability Checks

Olivia OaneaZEUS 2010, Berlin

202/26/2010 Olivia Oanea: Quick Adaptability Checks 2

Adapters and Adaptability

repair incorrect interaction between services using adapters goal: correct the message flow via message transformations compatibility criterion - weak termination

adaptability = existence of a service which coordinates correct message flow between services

302/26/2010 Olivia Oanea: Quick Adaptability Checks

Adaptability

adaptability achieved by construction (partner synthesis)

- using state space techniques verification (model checking) static analysis (service model specific techniques)

3


Open nets and behavior/communication abstraction

4


Open nets, state equation, communication fingerprints

5


Communication Fingerprints and Compositional Analysis

express different levels of abstraction for communication behavior intervals 1 ≤ x ≤ 7 octahedra 1 ≤ x +y +z ≤ 7 octagons 1 ≤ x - y ≤ 7

Composition of abstract service behavior intersection of system of constraints representing

- the state equation- communication fingerprints- mixed (using projection on message events)

emptiness check = feasibility feasibility = necessary condition for weak termination

6


Example

7


Compositional static analysis and adaptability

Adapter fingerprints are constraints for adapter transformation rules create, delete, transform events

- x->y - x=y- xy->ab - x=y=a=b;

Necessary conditions for adaptability the state equation of the composed system is feasible the intersection of the state equations of the given services is

feasible the fingerprints for the given services and the adapter fingerprint is

feasible mixed

8


N and N’ non-adaptable by the set of rules A

9


Applications of adaptability checks

Service repository service find

Fingerprint repository fingerprint find

Fingerprint repository service find

10


Tool chains for adaptability checks

11

Static analysis Adaptability

State-based Adaptability for finite state services


Experimental results non-adaptability

12

Interface

size

Adaptersize

Composedsystem size (pl./tr.)

Adapter synthesis (sec)

StateEquation

Fingerprint

Purchase order

10 6 280/664 0.1 0.01 0.005

Contract Negotiation

11 7 699/2523 176 0.11 0.007

Deliver Goods

14 9 1476/6471 7 1.1 0.014

Breakdown An.

15 9 937/2711 6 0.46 0.03

Quotation Requisition

19 11 1510/4908 52 0.43 0.016

phil4 8 4 389/657 0.13 0.05 0.019

phil5 10 5 1508/3471 1.53 0.53 0.08

phil6 12 6 6229/17719 23.65 3.03 0.4


Static analysis vs. state-based adaptability results

Static analysis adaptability check non-adaptable times bigger than inconclusive times solving times smaller than data loading times static analysis times depend on the structure of the process

- number of places/transitions/arcs (for constraints involving the state equation)

- number of interface events (sync and async) (for constraints involving fingerprints)

- fingerprints intersection times smaller than state equation intersection times

State-base adaptability times depend on the complexity of the state space of the inner and

the size of the interface

Static analysis times (Yasmina) small in comparison to state-base times (Wendy) for both inconclusive and non-adaptable results

13


Conclusions

adaptability checks using different abstraction level of service (communication) behavior using the state equation service communication fingerprints

(non-)adaptability check proves to be efficient in practical cases

Future work combine state-base methods with static-analysis methods for

synthesis combine with set algebra for services with abstract set

algebra (convex geometry)

http://service-technology.org/tools/

14



Technology

Quick Adaptability Checks