Architecture Modeling - SPES 2020

Architecture Modeling
ServiceBinding and compatibility of Services There are two case distinctions for
binding Services by means of ServiceBinding. If services of different ports shall be
bound establishing an assembly connection like illustrated in Figure 3.30a, then the directions
of both services need to be complementary (required for provided and vice versa). In the
case of delegation connections like depicted in Figure 3.30b, the directions must be the same.
Further the services must be compatible. Two services are compatible if their signatures are
the same. That means they associate the same DataType as returnType and have identical
Parameters with regard to their name and types.
Connector and compatibility of Ports When defining assembly connections
or delegation connections between Ports by means of the concept
Connector, all InteractionPoints of the Ports defined by their corresponding
PortSpecification are bound. Which pairs of InteractionPoints are bound is
determined by name. All pairs of InteractionPoints (Flows or Services) must be
compatible as described above.
FlowDirection
in
out
bidirectional
FlowKind
discrete
continuous
event
Serv iceDirection
provided
required
Parameter
+part 0..*
RichComponentProperty
PortSpecification
1
+component
+type
1
+portSpecification
+formalParameter +service
0..*
0..1
1
«isOfType»
+type 1
«isOfType»
+interactionPoint
RichComponent
Port
+ isConjugated: Boolean
0..*
Serv ice
InteractionPoint
+ direction: ServiceDirection
+service 1..*
«isOfType»
+component
+port
«isOfType»
1
0..*
+port
1..*
+component
1
Connector
«instanceRef»
+interconnection
Flow
+ direction: FlowDirection
+ kind: FlowKind
+returnType
1
«isOfType»
+type 1
DataType
+type 1
0..*
Interconnection
FlowBinding Serv iceBinding
«instanceRef»
Figure 3.31: Meta-model integration of the composition concepts
+flow
1..*
«instanceRef»
Composition of Contracts: If a composition of components is specified by means of the
described concepts, that composition is correct with regard to the syntactical interfaces of the
parts and the composition. However it must also be ensured, that the contracts specified for
the components typing the parts are compatible and are a valid refinement of the contracts
of the composition. Figure 3.32 illustrates that relation. The components ComponentA and
ComponentB have contracts C1 resp. C2. They are used as parts in the context of the composition
ComponentC, which in turn has a contract C12. The contracts are linked to the
components by means of the Satisfy-trace link described in 3.3.1.3. When constructing
a composition, the relationship of the contracts associated with the concerned components is
specified by means of the Entail-trace link.
42/ 156