DOCSLIB.ORG

Rapid Prototyping of Domain-Specific Architecture Languages Romain Rouvoy, Philippe Merle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rapid Prototyping of Domain-Specific Architecture Languages Romain Rouvoy, Philippe Merle Rapid Prototyping of Domain-Specific Architecture Languages Romain Rouvoy, Philippe Merle To cite this version: Romain Rouvoy, Philippe Merle. Rapid Prototyping of Domain-Specific Architecture Languages. International ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering (CBSE’12), Jun 2012, Bertinoro, Italy. pp.13-22, 10.1145/2304736.2304741. hal-00690607 HAL Id: hal-00690607 https://hal.inria.fr/hal-00690607 Submitted on 2 May 2012 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Rapid Prototyping of Domain-Specific Architecture Languages Romain Rouvoy Philippe Merle University Lille 1, LIFL CNRS UMR 8022 Inria Lille – Nord Europe, France Inria Lille – Nord Europe, France University Lille 1, LIFL CNRS UMR 8022 [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT which can be particularly error prone. Therefore, software Software architecture has become a sensitive discipline, which architects are rather tempted to manipulate domain-specific consists in concretizing the user requirements into a set of concepts which could be seamlessly converted to technical artifacts that can be used to model and reason about the artifacts. Nonetheless, the definition of such domain-specific software to be developed. However, the architect often relies languages is a tedious process, which requires a lot of experi- on its own knowledge to map domain-specific requirements ence from the architect to identify the relevant constructions onto generic software abstractions. Most of the time, this and a lot of time to develop the appropriate toolchain. leads to the definition of repetitive tasks and architecture We therefore believe that architects need a more flexible fragments, which can be particularly error prone. We there- approach to cope with the definition of domain-specific ar- fore believe that architects need a more flexible approach chitectures by leveraging general purpose Architecture De- scription Languages (ADLs). In this paper, we therefore in- to cope with the definition of domain-specific architectures FraSCAla by leveraging general purpose architecture description lan- troduce the framework as an adaptive architec- guages. This paper introduces the FraSCAla framework tural framework that can be used to rapidly prototype and as an adaptive architectural framework that can be used to experiment domain-specific ADLs in order to catalyze the definition and to improve the reliability of software architectures— rapidly prototype and experiment domain-specific ADLs in FraSCAla order to catalyze the definition and to improve the reliabil- i.e., is a framework for building “`ala carte” ity of software architectures. We demonstrate the merits of ADLs. In particular, we promote a layered approach (as de- this approach on two representative architectural patterns picted in Figure 1) to isolate the definition of the structural of component-based software architectures. architectural model from the language statements used to describe software architectures. We demonstrate the merits of this approach on two architectural patterns that are de- Categories and Subject Descriptors fined by the FraSCAti middleware platform [21] and the D.2.11 [Software Architectures]: [Domain-specific archi- COSMOS context framework [19]. tectures, Languages, Patterns] Keywords Software M2 Architecture Descriptions language prototyping, component-based architectures (section 4) 1. INTRODUCTION Domain-Specific Architecture Software architecture has become a sensitive discipline, Patterns which consists in concretizing the user requirements into a (section 3.3) set of artifacts that can be used to model and reason about M1 Domain-Specific the software to be developed. This task becomes even more Architecture Language (section 3.2) critical when the complexity of the developed software in- creases or when the software addresses a specific domain. In Domain-Specific Architecture Model both cases, the architect relies on its own knowledge to map (section 3.1) domain-specific requirements onto generic software abstrac- tions, like components. However, this process can lead to the definition of repetitive tasks and architecture fragments, FraSCAla M0 Meta-model (section 2) Figure 1: Overview of the contribution. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are The remainder of this paper is therefore organized as fol- not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies lows. We first introduce the FraSCAla framework, which bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to groups the essential concepts of our contribution (cf. Sec- republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. tion 2). Then, we build on this kernel to demonstrate the Copyright 20XX ACM X-XXXXX-XX-X/XX/XX ...$10.00. definition of an ADL for the Service Component Architec- ture (SCA) industrial standard (cf. Section 3). The result- extends extends ing ADL is assessed by the illustration of two case studies 0..* 1..1 controls 0..* FraSCAla Concept composes Controller which exploit to describe complex software ar- 1..* chitecture that exhibit architectural patterns (cf. Section 4). In the last part of the paper, we compare our contribution with the state-of-the-art (cf. Section 5) before concluding Element introduces Parameter and sketching some of the perspectives for this work (cf. + name: String Section 6). 0..* + optional: Boolean points + multiple: Boolean 2. THE FRASCALA FRAMEWORK FraSCAla is a framework for prototyping the definition Reference Value of Architectural Description Languages (ADL). The objec- + type: DataType tive of FraSCAla is to leverage the construction of ADLs by providing an homogeneous environment to introduce new architectural concepts according to domain-specific require- Figure 2: FraSCAla Meta-Model. ments. Although it mostly targets prototyping activities, FraSCAla promotes a structured approach to build ADLs by adopting an incremental design approach. First, FraS- 2.2 Deriving a CBSE Model CAla defines a meta-model to introduce the essential con- Software architectures have already been adopted by vari- cepts required to prototype an ADL. Then, instances of this ous Software Engineering communities [4]. In the context of meta-model are used to describe categories of ADL (e.g., this paper, we focus on the definition of an ADL conforming component-based ADLs). Each FraSCAla model can be to the principles of Component-Based Software Engineer- further refined to fit the specificities of a given component ing [8]. In particular, we demonstrate that FraSCAla can model (e.g., Service Component Architecture standard [2]). be used to describe a generic component model, which can Once a target model is defined, FraSCAla introduces the be incrementally refined towards a more concrete component associated language by constraining this model with a con- model and ultimately a domain-specific component model. crete syntax. This concrete syntax introduces the keywords Figure 3 depicts the generic component model we designed of the ADL as well as the associated operations it supports using the stereotypes introduced by the FraSCAla meta- for describing software architectures. The last feature of model. This model is strongly inspired from the Fractal FraSCAla consists in supporting the definition of architec- component model, as described in [5]. Our model is struc- tural patterns. Software architecture patterns are a power- tured around the concept of Membrane, basically defined as ful construction for isolating reusable fragments of software a composition of a Name and an Annotation controller. A architecture descriptions. By enabling the definition of ar- Membrane is an empty software cell extended as a Compo- chitectural patterns, FraSCAla captures domain-specific nent Membrane, which includes the Port and Property con- architectures as advanced patterns. To reduce the burden trollers. One can observe that both the Membrane and the of using the complex MDE technologies like the Eclipse Gate concepts (inherited by the Port and Property concepts) Modelling Framework (EMF) [22], FraSCAla builds on include the Annotation controller. Annotations provide a the Scala programming language [17, 18]. In particular, variability point in this generic model in order to decorate a FraSCAla benefits from Scala’s support for type inference, Membrane or a Gate with specific metadata. SubMembrane genericity, implicit definition, trait, closures, as well as na- and Composite Membrane are themselves defined as a Mem- tive XML support. The remainder of this section therefore brane extension integrating specific controllers. describes the core of FraSCAla and how it can be used to The definition of this yet another generic component model sketch an ADL for component-based systems. provides an architectural pivot, which can be used to auto- matically instrument concrete component models (e.g., in- 2.1 Defining an ADL Meta-Model trospection,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Patterns Senior Member of Technical Staff and Pattern Languages Knowledge Systems Corp
    Kyle Brown An Introduction to Patterns Senior Member of Technical Staff and Pattern Languages Knowledge Systems Corp. 4001 Weston Parkway CSC591O Cary, North Carolina 27513-2303 April 7-9, 1997 919-481-4000 Raleigh, NC [email protected] http://www.ksccary.com Copyright (C) 1996, Kyle Brown, Bobby Woolf, and 1 2 Knowledge Systems Corp. All rights reserved. Overview Bobby Woolf Senior Member of Technical Staff O Patterns Knowledge Systems Corp. O Software Patterns 4001 Weston Parkway O Design Patterns Cary, North Carolina 27513-2303 O Architectural Patterns 919-481-4000 O Pattern Catalogs [email protected] O Pattern Languages http://www.ksccary.com 3 4 Patterns -- Why? Patterns -- Why? !@#$ O Learning software development is hard » Lots of new concepts O Must be some way to » Hard to distinguish good communicate better ideas from bad ones » Allow us to concentrate O Languages and on the problem frameworks are very O Patterns can provide the complex answer » Too much to explain » Much of their structure is incidental to our problem 5 6 Patterns -- What? Patterns -- Parts O Patterns are made up of four main parts O What is a pattern? » Title -- the name of the pattern » A solution to a problem in a context » Problem -- a statement of what the pattern solves » A structured way of representing design » Context -- a discussion of the constraints and information in prose and diagrams forces on the problem »A way of communicating design information from an expert to a novice » Solution -- a description of how to solve the problem » Generative:
    [Show full text]
  • Capturing Interactions in Architectural Patterns
    Capturing Interactions in Architectural Patterns Dharmendra K Yadav Rushikesh K Joshi Department of Computer Science and Engineering Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Powai, Mumbai 400076, India Powai, Mumbai 400076, India Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] TABLE I Abstract—Patterns of software architecture help in describing ASUMMARY OF CCS COMBINATORS structural and functional properties of the system in terms of smaller components. The emphasis of this work is on capturing P rimitives & Descriptions Architectural the aspects of pattern descriptions and the properties of inter- Examples Significance component interactions including non-deterministic behavior. Prefix (.) Action sequence intra-component Through these descriptions we capture structural and behavioral p1.p2 sequential flow specifications as well as properties against which the specifications Summation (+) Nondeterminism choice within a component are verified. The patterns covered in this paper are variants of A1 + A2 Proxy, Chain, MVC, Acceptor-Connector, Publisher-Subscriber Composition (|) Connect matching multiple connected and Dinning Philosopher patterns. While the machines are CCS- A1 | A2 i/o ports in assembly components based, the properties have been described in Modal µ-Calculus. Restriction (\) Hiding ports from Internal The approach serves as a framework for precise architectural A\{p1, k1, ..} further composition features descriptions. Relabeling ([]) Renaming of ports syntactic renaming A[new/old, ..] I. INTRODUCTION In component/connector based architectural descriptions [6], [13], components are primary entities having identities in the represents interface points as ports uses a subset of CSP for system and connectors provide the means for communication it’s formal semantics.
    [Show full text]
  • Wiki As Pattern Language
    Wiki as Pattern Language Ward Cunningham Cunningham and Cunningham, Inc.1 Sustasis Foundation Portland, Oregon Michael W. Mehaffy Faculty of Architecture Delft University of Technology2 Sustasis Foundation Portland, Oregon Abstract We describe the origin of wiki technology, which has become widely influential, and its relationship to the development of pattern languages in software. We show here how the relationship is deeper than previously understood, opening up the possibility of expanded capability for wikis, including a new generation of “federated” wiki. [NOTE TO REVIEWERS: This paper is part first-person history and part theory. The history is given by one of the participants, an original developer of wiki and co-developer of pattern language. The theory points toward future potential of pattern language within a federated, peer-to-peer framework.] 1. Introduction Wiki is today widely established as a kind of website that allows users to quickly and easily share, modify and improve information collaboratively (Leuf and Cunningham, 2001). It is described on Wikipedia – perhaps its best known example – as “a website which allows its users to add, modify, or delete its content via a web browser usually using a simplified markup language or a rich-text editor” (Wikipedia, 2013). Wiki is so well established, in fact, that a Google search engine result for the term displays approximately 1.25 billion page “hits”, or pages on the World Wide Web that include this term somewhere within their text (Google, 2013a). Along with this growth, the definition of what constitutes a “wiki” has broadened since its introduction in 1995. Consider the example of WikiLeaks, where editable content would defeat the purpose of the site.
    [Show full text]
  • Enterprise Integration Patterns Introduction
    Enterprise Integration Patterns Gregor Hohpe Sr. Architect, ThoughtWorks [email protected] July 23, 2002 Introduction Integration of applications and business processes is a top priority for many enterprises today. Requirements for improved customer service or self-service, rapidly changing business environments and support for mergers and acquisitions are major drivers for increased integration between existing “stovepipe” systems. Very few new business applications are being developed or deployed without a major focus on integration, essentially making integratability a defining quality of enterprise applications. Many different tools and technologies are available in the marketplace to address the inevitable complexities of integrating disparate systems. Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) tool suites offer proprietary messaging mechanisms, enriched with powerful tools for metadata management, visual editing of data transformations and a series of adapters for various popular business applications. Newer technologies such as the JMS specification and Web Services standards have intensified the focus on integration technologies and best practices. Architecting an integration solution is a complex task. There are many conflicting drivers and even more possible ‘right’ solutions. Whether the architecture was in fact a good choice usually is not known until many months or even years later, when inevitable changes and additions put the original architecture to test. There is no cookbook for enterprise integration solutions. Most integration vendors provide methodologies and best practices, but these instructions tend to be very much geared towards the vendor-provided tool set and often lack treatment of the bigger picture, including underlying guidelines and principles. As a result, successful enterprise integration architects tend to be few and far in between and have usually acquired their knowledge the hard way.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Architectural Styles.V4
    Survey of Architectural Styles Alexander Bird, Bianca Esguerra, Jack Li Liu, Vergil Marana, Jack Kha Nguyen, Neil Oluwagbeminiyi Okikiolu, Navid Pourmantaz Department of Software Engineering University of Calgary Calgary, Canada Abstract— In software engineering, an architectural style is a and implementation; the capabilities and experience of highest-level description of an accepted solution to a common developers; and the infrastructure and organizational software problem. This paper describes and compares a selection constraints [30]. These styles are not presented as out-of-the- of nine accepted architectural styles selected by the authors and box solutions, but rather a framework within which a specific applicable in various domains. Each pattern is presented in a software design may be made. If one were to say “that cannot general sense and with a domain example, and then evaluated in be called a layered architecture because the such and such a terms of benefits and drawbacks. Then, the styles are compared layer must communicate with an object other than the layer in a condensed table of advantages and disadvantages which is above and below it” then one would have missed the point of useful both as a summary of the architectural styles as well as a architectural styles and design patterns. They are not intended tool for selecting a style to apply to a particular project. The to be definitive and final, but rather suggestive and a starting paper is written to accomplish the following purposes: (1) to give readers a general sense of several architectural styles and when point, not to be used as a rule book but rather a source of and when not to apply them, (2) to facilitate software system inspiration.
    [Show full text]
  • Pattern Languages in HCI: a Critical Review
    HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION, 2006, Volume 21, pp. 49–102 Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Pattern Languages in HCI: A Critical Review Andy Dearden Sheffield Hallam University Janet Finlay Leeds Metropolitan University ABSTRACT This article presents a critical review of patterns and pattern languages in hu- man–computer interaction (HCI). In recent years, patterns and pattern languages have received considerable attention in HCI for their potential as a means for de- veloping and communicating information and knowledge to support good de- sign. This review examines the background to patterns and pattern languages in HCI, and seeks to locate pattern languages in relation to other approaches to in- teraction design. The review explores four key issues: What is a pattern? What is a pattern language? How are patterns and pattern languages used? and How are values reflected in the pattern-based approach to design? Following on from the review, a future research agenda is proposed for patterns and pattern languages in HCI. Andy Dearden is an interaction designer with an interest in knowledge sharing and communication in software development. He is a senior lecturer in the Com- munication and Computing Research Centre at Sheffield Hallam University. Janet Finlay is a usability researcher with an interest in design communication and systems evaluation. She is Professor of Interactive Systems in Innovation North at Leeds Metropolitan University. 50 DEARDEN AND FINLAY CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2. THE SCOPE OF THIS REVIEW 2.1. General Software Design Patterns 2.2. Interface Software Design Patterns 2.3. Interaction Design Patterns 3. A SHORT HISTORY OF PATTERNS 3.1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of Pattern Theory the Future of the Theory, and the Generation of a Living World
    THE ORIGINS OF PATTERN THEORY THE FUTURE OF THE THEORY, AND THE GENERATION OF A LIVING WORLD Christopher Alexander Introduction by James O. Coplien nce in a great while, a great idea makes it across the boundary of one discipline to take root in another. The adoption of Christopher O Alexander’s patterns by the software community is one such event. Alexander both commands respect and inspires controversy in his own discipline; he is the author of several books with long-running publication records, the first recipient of the AIA Gold Medal for Research, a member of the Swedish Royal Academy since 1980, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, recipient of dozens of awards and honors including the Best Building in Japan award in 1985, and the American Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture Distinguished Professor Award. It is odd that his ideas should have found a home in software, a discipline that deals not with timbers and tiles but with pure thought stuff, and with ephemeral and weightless products called programs. The software community embraced the pattern vision for its relevance to problems that had long plagued software design in general and object-oriented design in particular. September/October 1999 IEEE Software 71 Focusing on objects had caused us to lose the pattern discipline that the software community has system perspective. Preoccupation with design yet scarcely touched: the moral imperative to build method had caused us to lose the human perspec- whole systems that contribute powerfully to the tive. The curious parallels between Alexander’s quality of life, as we recognize and rise to the re- world of buildings and our world of software con- sponsibility that accompanies our position of influ- struction helped the ideas to take root and thrive in ence in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Architectural Assets
    ® IBM Software Group Understanding Architectural Assets Peter Eeles [email protected] © 2008 IBM Corporation IBM Software Group | Rational software Agenda Introduction Sources of architecture Types of architectural asset Characterizing architectural assets Automating asset reuse Conclusion 2 IBM Software Group | Rational software Inputs into this Presentation Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA) 2008 18 – 22 February 2008, Vancouver, BC, Canada Working session: Architectural Knowledge IBM Asset Architecture Board Reusable Asset Specification Rational Asset Manager RUP for Asset-based Development © 2006 Tourism Vancouver 3 IBM Software Group | Rational software Agenda Introduction Sources of architecture Types of architectural asset Characterizing architectural assets Automating asset reuse Conclusion 4 IBM Software Group | Rational software Sources of Architecture Theft From a previous system or from technical literature Method An approach to deriving the architecture from the requirements Intuition The experience of the architect From “Mommy, Where Do Software Architectures Come From?”, Philippe Kruchten 1st International Workshop on Architectures for Software Systems, Seattle, 1995 5 IBM Software Group | Rational software Agenda Introduction Sources of architecture Types of architectural asset Characterizing architectural assets Automating asset reuse Conclusion 6 IBM Software Group | Rational software What Types of Architectural Asset are there? Reference Design Architecture
    [Show full text]
  • Patterns-Of-Enterprise-Application-Architecture-Book.Pdf
    Patterns Of Enterprise Application Architecture Book incorrigiblyNoe foxtrots and slantwise metricised as illaudable her worts. Allen Microporous revivify her and jennets tierced lowe Bishop conscientiously. committed her Torrance bulgur overexposes often wons antiseptically smash or uncanonizing when hydroptic thereby, Odell is misspokeSly synodal? Can be done, domain of architecture patterns of enterprise application mentioned in order We use a very useful not to enterprise application development time you will. Kami melawan kejahatan cybee, many architectural style house is done on what constitutes the enterprises use. Recipient email address and how oop and active record. Please enter with different password. How to pee whether two groups of sequences are holding in cycles? Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture Addison-Wesley Signature Series Fowler English Edition eBook Martin Fowler Amazonde Kindle Store. Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture Buy Patterns of. You need to patterns book if so that pattern covered by flipkart store? In possible new book noted software engineering expert Martin Fowler turns his bullshit to enterprise application development He helps professionals understand the. Enterprise application architectures application architecture martin fowler presents the books is a new avenues of the majority of new to. What constitutes the patterns of the actual ha surgido un centro de que quien esté detras del computador sea una calificación general books. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Product architecture book takes the application architectures application controller is mainly about topping up the patterns are done only storage facilities, uber and shipped by handing it. Exclusive store state in this book is to delete this time and receive notifications of volunteers worked and system that you have the application.
    [Show full text]
  • The Patterns of Architecture/T3xture
    THE PATTERNS OF ARCHITECTURE NIKOS A. SALINGAROS Published in Lynda Burke, Randy Sovich, and Craig Purcell, Editors: T3XTURE No. 3, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016, pages 7-24. EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION Pattern theory has not as yet transformed architectural practice—despite the acclaim for A Pattern Language, 1 Christopher Alexander’s book, which introduced and substantiated the theory. However, it has generated a great amount of far-ranging, supportive scholarship. In this essay Nikos Salingaros expands the scope of the pattern types under consideration, and explicates some of the mathematical, scientific and humanistic justification for the pattern approach. The author also argues for the manifest superiority of the pattern approach to design over Modernist and contemporary theories of the last one hundred years. To a great extent Dr. Salingaros’s conviction rests on the process and goals of the pattern language method which have as their basis the fundamental realities of the natural world: the mathematics of nature (many that have been studied since the beginning of human history); the process of organic development; and the ideal structural environment for human activity. For Salingaros, Alexander, et al. aesthetics in Architecture derive from these principles rather than from notions of style or artistic inspiration. AUTHOR’S INTRODUCTION — KEY PATTERN CONCEPTS Pattern. A pattern is a discovered organization of space, and also a coherent merging of geometry with human actions. In common usage “pattern” has an expansive definition. In Architecture “pattern” often equates with “solution”. In any discussion of architectural pattern theory the word “pattern” itself is used repeatedly, often with reference to somewhat different concepts.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Architectural Support for Tangible User Interfaces In
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2012 Software architectural support for tangible user interfaces in distributed, heterogeneous computing environments Cornelius Toole Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Toole, Cornelius, "Software architectural support for tangible user interfaces in distributed, heterogeneous computing environments" (2012). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 932. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/932 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURAL SUPPORT FOR TANGIBLE USER INTERFACES IN DISTRIBUTED, HETEROGENEOUS COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Computer Science by Cornelius Toole, Jr. B.S. Computer Science, Jackson State University, 2003 M.S. Computer Science, Jackson State University, 2005 August 2012 Acknowledgments Despite the solitary nature of doctoral studies, this dissertation would not have been possible without the support of my advisor, family, friends and colleagues. Thanks to my committee, Professors Brygg Ullmer, Gabrielle Allen and Bijaya Karki for advising me throughout this process. A special thanks goes to my advisor, Professor Brygg Ullmer, for supporting my research at Louisiana State University. He was very instrumental in my coming to the University for doctoral studies and has shown remarkable zeal in supporting my research interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Peer: an Architectural Pattern∗
    Peer: an Architectural Pattern∗ M. Amoretti, M. Reggiani, F. Zanichelli, G. Conte Distributed Systems Group Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione Parco Area delle Scienze, 181A, I-43100, Parma, Italy {amoretti, reggiani, mczane, conte}@ce.unipr.it Abstract Virtual Organizations (VOs) are transitory communities made of individuals and insti- tutions coupled together by advanced communications technologies. Today’s VOs are more and more demanding in terms of efficiency and flexibility of the technological infrastructure. Envisioning VOs in which all participants are both resource providers and consumers, in a peer-to-peer fashion, seems to be an appropriate solution. This paper proposes a structure for programmed elements, i.e. Peers, sharing resources through a peer-to-peer network. Publishing and discovery of resource provision services are managed by the routing and communication modules. The first one creates publication/query messages and computes their destination, which is then used by the communication service to transport the message to the destination Peer. Intent The Peer pattern enables Virtual Organizations whose participants collaborate to deploy, pub- lish, discover, and consume heterogeneous resources (CPU, storage, bandwidth, applications). Example Community support systems is gaining more and more attention in application areas ranging from leisure and customer support to knowledge management. ICT, in particular, is becoming of paramount importance for the so-called Informal Learning, which includes all the activities taking place outside classes and course that aim at understanding, creation of knowledge, and skills acquisition. Several universities around the world have already deployed or are experimenting solutions for course content distribution over their TCP/IP wired/wireless networks and the Internet.
    [Show full text]