COM revisited: tool-assisted modelling of an architectural framework

ABSTRACT

Designing architectural frameworks without the aid of formal modeling is error prone. But, unless supported by analysis, formal modeling is prone to its own class of errors, in which formal statements fail to match the designer's intent. A fully automatic analysis tool can rapidly expose such errors, and can make the process of constructing and refining a formal model more effective.

This paper describes a case study in which we recast a model of Microsoft COM's query interface and aggregation mechanism into Alloy, a lightweight notation for describing structures. We used Alloy's analyzer to simulate the specification, to check properties and to evaluate changes. This allowed us to manipulate our model more quickly and with far greater confidence than would otherwise have been possible, resulting in a much simpler model and a better understanding of its key properties.

REFERENCES

• 1: Gregory D. Abowd , Robert Allen , David Garlan, Formalizing style to understand descriptions of software architecture, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), v.4 n.4, p.319-364, Oct. 1995 [doi>10.1145/226241.226244]
• 2: Robert J. Allen , David Garlan , James Ivers, Formal modeling and analysis of the HLA component integration standard, Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering, p.70-79, November 01-05, 1998, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, United States
• 3: Don Box , Grady Booch , Charlie Kindel, Essential COM, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1997
• 4: Damon, C.A., R. Melton, R.J. Allen, E. Bigdow, J. M. Ivers and D. Garlan. Formalizing a Specification for Analysis: The HLA Ownership Properties. Technical Report CMU-CS-99-126, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 1999.
• 5: Elisabetta Di Nitto , David Rosenblum, Exploiting ADLs to specify architectural styles induced by middleware infrastructures, Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Software engineering, p.13-22, May 16-22, 1999, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/302405.302406]
• 6: David Garlan , Robert Allen , John Ockerbloom, Exploiting style in architectural design environments, Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering, p.175-188, December 06-09, 1994, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
• 7: Paola Inverardi , Alexander L. Wolf, Formal Specification and Analysis of Software Architectures Using the Chemical Abstract Machine Model, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.21 n.4, p.373-386, April 1995 [doi>10.1109/32.385973]
• 8: Jackson, D., Alloy: A lightweight object modelling notation, Technical Report 797, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, Cambridge, MA, February 2000.
• 9: Daniel Jackson , Ian Schechter , Hya Shlyahter, Alcoa: the alloy constraint analyzer, Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software engineering, p.730-733, June 04-11, 2000, Limerick, Ireland [doi>10.1145/337180.337616]
• 10: Daniel Le Métayer, Software architecture styles as graph grammars, Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering, p.15-23, October 16-18, 1996, San Francisco, California, United States
• 11: David C. Luckham , James Vera, An Event-Based Architecture Definition Language, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.21 n.9, p.717-734, September 1995 [doi>10.1109/32.464548]
• 12: Jeff Magee , Jeff Kramer, Dynamic structure in software architectures, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, v.21 n.6, p.3-14, Nov. 1996
• 13: Microsoft Corporation, The Component Object Model Specification, version 0.9, October 24, 1995, available at: www.microsoft.com/com/resources/comdocs.asp.
• 14: Monroe, R.T. Capturing Software Architecture Design Expertise With Armani. Technical Report CMU-CS-98-163, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, October 1998.
• 15: James Rumbaugh , Ivar Jacobson , Grady Booch, The Unified Modeling Language reference manual, Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd., Essex, UK, 1998
• 16: Kevin J. Sullivan , Mark Marchukov , John Socha, Analysis of a Conflict between Aggregation and Interface Negotiation in Microsoft's Component Object Model, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.25 n.4, p.584-599, July 1999 [doi>10.1109/32.799960]
• 17: J. M. Spivey, Understanding Z: a specification language and its formal semantics, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1988
• 18: David Wile, AML: An Architecture Meta-Language, Proceedings of the 14th IEEE international conference on Automated software engineering, p.183, October 12-15, 1999

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

Additional Classification:
  F. Theory of Computation
  F.3 LOGICS AND MEANINGS OF PROGRAMS

General Terms:
Design, Management

Keywords:
Microsoft COM, alloy, architectural style, constraint solver, formal methods, formal specification, integration frameworks