27.07.2013 Views

2 Why We Need Model-Based Testing

2 Why We Need Model-Based Testing

2 Why We Need Model-Based Testing

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

17 Further Reading<br />

There is a lot of research that has been done in the areas discussed in this part of the<br />

book. <strong>We</strong> mention some works that are related to the topics under discussion, and<br />

from which further related work can be found. The selection is far from exhaustive.<br />

The discussion follows the structure of this part of the book.<br />

Compositional modeling. Protocol design and the layering principle mentioned in<br />

Section 14.1 are discussed in-depth in Comer (2000). The notion of features and<br />

the topic of feature interaction have been focused on telecommunication software.<br />

There is a series of books (see, e.g., Reiff-Marganiec and Ryan, 2005) that discuss<br />

approaches to alleviate the problem in that context. The sample protocol SP used<br />

in Section 14.2, although abstract, is related to real-life application-level network<br />

protocols such as the ones discussed in Hertel (2003).<br />

Properties of model program composition that are discussed in Section 14.3 are<br />

analyzed formally in Veanes et al. (2007a), where composition, as treated in this<br />

book, is called parallel composition. The composition of model programs is effectively<br />

a program transformation that is most interesting when it is formally grounded<br />

in an existing semantics and has useful algebraic properties. The semantics of executing<br />

an action in a state with a rich background is founded on abstract state<br />

machines or ASMs (Gurevich, 1995; Blass and Gurevich, 2000). Determining the<br />

action traces that are produced and the properties of traces that are preserved when<br />

model programs are composed is founded on the view of model programs as labeled<br />

transition systems or LTSs (Keller, 1976; Lynch and Tuttle, 1987). The composition<br />

of model programs is also related to product of classical automata (Hopcroft<br />

and Ullman, 1979). When considering interaction of model programs that require<br />

synchronization or communication on elements other than actions, composition of<br />

model programs may be too limited. A more general notion of composition can be<br />

based on the theory interactive ASMs (Blass and Gurevich, 2006).<br />

The topic of Section 14.3.2 is related to the notion of cross-cutting of concerns<br />

in aspect-oriented programming (Elrad et al., 2001; Douence et al., 2004).<br />

more free ebooks download links at:<br />

http://www.ebook-x.com<br />

275

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!