Reusable Specification of Non-functional Properties in DSLs

Reusable Specification ofNon-functional Properties

in DSLsFrancisco Durán, Steffen Zschaler, and Javier Troya

28 September, 2012

Context

• Model-driven Engineering (MDE)

– Domain-Specific Languages defined through

• Metamodels (abstract syntax)

• Graphics (concrete syntax)

• Language Semantics

– Models are token models

– Semantics is given through rewriting

• Specified using in-place model transformations

28/09/2012 (c) Durán, Zschaler, Troya 2

Example: A Production Line








Non-functional Properties






Analysis Opportunities

DSL modelsDefined by the user

+Behavioral

Model

StructuralModel

Ecore (MOF)

José E. Rivera, Francisco Durán and Antonio Vallecillo: On the Behavioral Semantics of Real-Time Domain Specific Visual Languages. In Rewriting Logic and Its Applications, LNCS 6381, pp. 174–190

28/09/2012



+Behavioral

Model

StructuralModel

Ecore (MOF)

Rewriting LogicSemantic DomainTransparent to the user

Semantic MappingsTransparent to the user

(Real-Time) MaudeSimulation, reachability analysis, model checking


28/09/2012



+Behavioral

Model

StructuralModel

Ecore (MOF)

Rewriting LogicSemantic DomainTransparent to the user

Semantic MappingsTransparent to the user

(Real-Time) MaudeSimulation, reachability analysis, model checking


28/09/2012

•Observer values after simulation give predictions,• (Probabilistic) Model checking can be used toverify satisfaction of NFPs


A Different Example


A Different Example


A Different Example


A Different Example


A Different Example


A Different Example


A Different Example

Problem: Complete redefinition of response time.

Better:

Extract definition of response time into a separate

DSL and weave it in.

Modularised Response Time Observer


MMResponseTime Server, Queue,

Request

Modularised Response Time Observer


MMResponseTime Server, Queue,

Request

Weaving Languages


Weaving Languages


Weaving Languages


Weaving Languages


Weaving Languages


Weaving Languages (2)










Sanity Conditions

• Need to ensure that adding observers

does not change behavioursTransformation step possible for model expressed in DSL

Step still possible in the same model expressed in DSL +

Observers (possibly including appropriate observer objects)

• For any legal model and transformation

sequence


DSLMMDSL MDSL

M

Sanity Conditions

• Need to ensure that adding observers

does not change behavioursTransformation step possible for model expressed in DSL

Step still possible in the same model expressed in DSL +

Observers (possibly including appropriate observer objects)

• For any legal model and transformation

sequence


DSLMMDSL MDSL

M

This condition can only be checked once the merge has

been performed.

We provide conditions to be checked of the observer

model and the binding that imply the condition below.

Conclusions

• We show composition of language semantics

– For DSLs based on in-place transformation

– For conservative extensions

• Two checkable conditions to verify consistency of

such extensions

– One can be checked of observer language independent of

composition

• Currently working to weaken some of the

assumptions made on base language and binding,

etc.


QUESTIONS?


Science

Reusable Specification of Non-functional Properties in DSLs