swim-suit & icog technology selection dario di crescenzo (selex si) david scarlatti (boeing)...

SWIM-SUIT & ICOG SWIM-SUIT & ICOG Technology SelectionTechnology Selection

Dario Di Crescenzo (Selex SI)David Scarlatti (Boeing)

15/05/2008 AP4/SWIM Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) 1

Overall SWIM-SUIT Overall SWIM-SUIT Technology Selection Technology Selection

ProcessProcess


Requirements

(WP 1.5)

Set of Criteria

Scenarios

(WP 1.6)

Architectural

PatternsCandidate

Technologies

Selection

Matrix

Set of Criteria for Set of Criteria for evaluation of evaluation of technologiestechnologies


Requirements

Set of Criteria

Technical knowledge available at partner

Applicability for Wide Area Network (WAN)

Scalability

Robustness

Flexibility

Reliability

Message overhead

Portability

Manageability

Interoperability

Suitability for Near Real Time

COTS selection

Use of standards

Availability of IDE

Support for Security

The different criteria are grouped by topics having different weights:

• Network Performance

• e.g. Message overhead

• Efficiency

• e.g. Reliability, Robustness, Scalability

• Maintainability and Management

• e.g. Flexibility, Manageability..

• Stability and Evolutivity

• e.g. Interoperability, Use of Standards ..

• Security

• Support for Security

Scalability

Robustness

Use of standard

Message Overhead

…

For each property a value in the range from 0 to 4 has been assigned

0 - Technology does not lean on standard.

1

2 - Technology leans on a new standard (durability not guaranteed)

3

4 - Technology leans on mature and widespread standards.

The Criteria are divided in two groups: the Swim Criteria are those that must be considered

allocated to the SWIM project, while the SWIM-SUIT Criteria that are related to SWIM-

Prototype aiming to more pragmatic issues in the short time.

Set of Criteria for evaluation of technologies

Set of Criteria for Set of Criteria for evaluation of evaluation of technologiestechnologies


5.4 ROBUSTNESSSection 3.2.3 of "Information Content and Service Requirements" defines robustness and details eleven requirements for SWIM. Some of these requirements will drive to specific design practices and architecture patterns, especially those related to redundancy and fault tolerance (stress conditions). Other will impose special functional design, mainly the ones related to cope with erroneous or corrupt data (invalid input). Here we consider the impact of the requirements on the underlying technologies to be used; mainly its level of support to distributed and redundant architectures.Robustness can be improved too if the technology shows some self-testing capabilities .

Related Requirements:SWIM-SYS-ROB-010 TO SWIM-SYS-ROB-110

Each technology will be scored this way:

0 - Technology does not support redundancy12 - Technology supports redundancy34 - Technology supports redundancy, has self-testing capabilities and a record of stability (support invalid inputs gracefully)

Architectural Patterns Architectural Patterns from scenariosfrom scenarios


Scenarios

(WP 1.6)

Architectural

Patterns

Initial Candidate Initial Candidate TechnologiesTechnologies


COMMON OBJECT REQUEST BROKER ARCHITECTURE (CORBA)

DATA DISTRIBUTION SERVICE (DDS)

J2EE CONNECTOR ARCHITECTURE (JCA)

ENTERPRISE SERVICE BUS (ESB)

WEB SERVICES

ELECTRONIC BUSINESS USING EXTENSIBLE MARKUP LANGUAGE (EBXML)

MESSAGE ORIENTED MIDDLEWARE (MOM)

COLLABORATIVE DATABASES



Collaborative Databases are not standardized, federation service is linked to a specific product




JCA connectors are not further since they seems a weak alternative to other technologies like CORBA or Web Services




JCA connectors are not further since they seems a weak alternative to other technologies like CORBA or Web Services

WebServices and ebXML are using the same technology , Web Services are more flexible

Final Candidate Final Candidate TechnologiesTechnologies


COMMON OBJECT REQUEST BROKER ARCHITECTURE (CORBA)

DATA DISTRIBUTION SERVICE (DDS)

ENTERPRISE SERVICE BUS (ESB)

WEB SERVICES

MESSAGE ORIENTED MIDDLEWARE (MOM)

Final Candidate Final Candidate Technologies .vs. Technologies .vs.

Architectural PatternsArchitectural Patterns


Split of set of Criteria for Split of set of Criteria for evaluation of evaluation of technologiestechnologies


Applicability for Wide Area Network (WAN)ScalabilityRobustnessFlexibilityReliabilityMessage overheadPortabilityManageabilityInteroperabilitySuitability for Near Real TimeUse of standardsSupport for Security

Availability of IDETechnical knowledge available at partnerCOTS selection

SWIMCriteria

SWIM-SUITCriteria

Selection MatrixSelection Matrix


Criteria Weight CORBA

ESB Request/

Reply

Web services (J2EE) MOM (JMS)

Web services

Notification

ESB Publish/

Subscribe

CORBA Notification

Service DDS

Applicability for Wide Area Network (WAN) 10,0% 3,0 3,0 2,0 3,0 2,0 3,0 3,0 4,0

Message overhead 10,0% 3,0 3,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 3,0 2,0 4,0

Network Performance 20,0% 0,6 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,6 0,5 0,8

Suitability for Near Real Time 5,0% 3,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 2,0 1,0 4,0

Reliability 5,0% 4,0 3,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 4,0

Robustness 10,0% 3,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 3,0 4,0

Scalability 10,0% 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 4,0

Efficiency 30,0% 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 0,8 1,2

Flexibility 6,5% 3,0 4,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 3,0

Manageability 6,5% 3,0 4,0 4,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 3,0

Portability 7,0% 3,0 3,0 4,0 2,0 3,0 2,0 3,0 3,0

Mantainability and Management 20,0% 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,5 0,7 0,6 0,6 0,6

Interoperability 10,0% 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0

Use of standards 10,0% 4,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 4,0 2,0

Stability and evolutivity 20,0% 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,6

Support for Security 10,0% 3,0 4,0 4,0 2,0 4,0 4,0 3,0 2,0

Security 10,0% 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,2

Percentage check 100,0%

3,3 3,4 3,4 2,9 3,2 3,2 3,0 3,4

Availability of IDE 35,0% 2,0 3,0 4,0 4,0 2,0 2,0 1,0 3,0

Technical knowledge available at partner 25,0% 3,0 2,0 4,0 4,0 1,0 2,0 1,0 3,0

COTS selection 40,0% 2,0 3,0 4,0 4,0 2,0 3,0 3,0 1,0


2,3 2,8 4,0 4,0 1,8 2,4 1,8 2,2

2,8 3,1 3,7 3,4 2,5 2,8 2,4 2,8

SWIM Criteria

SWIM SUIT

Criteria Score

SWIM Criteria Score

Average of SWIM & SWIM-SUIT Criteria

Publish/Subscribe

SWIM-SUIT Criteria Score

Request/Reply

Selection Matrix – Final Selection Matrix – Final SelectionSelection


Criteria Weight CORBA

ESB Request/

Reply

Web services (J2EE) MOM (JMS)

Web services

Notification

ESB Publish/

Subscribe

CORBA Notification

Service DDS

Applicability for Wide Area Network (WAN) 10,0% 3,0 3,0 2,0 3,0 2,0 3,0 3,0 4,0

Message overhead 10,0% 3,0 3,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 3,0 2,0 4,0

Network Performance 20,0% 0,6 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,6 0,5 0,8

Suitability for Near Real Time 5,0% 3,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 2,0 1,0 4,0

Reliability 5,0% 4,0 3,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 4,0

Robustness 10,0% 3,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 3,0 4,0

Scalability 10,0% 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 4,0

Efficiency 30,0% 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 0,8 1,2

Flexibility 6,5% 3,0 4,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 3,0

Manageability 6,5% 3,0 4,0 4,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 3,0

Portability 7,0% 3,0 3,0 4,0 2,0 3,0 2,0 3,0 3,0

Mantainability and Management 20,0% 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,5 0,7 0,6 0,6 0,6

Interoperability 10,0% 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0

Use of standards 10,0% 4,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 4,0 2,0

Stability and evolutivity 20,0% 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,6

Support for Security 10,0% 3,0 4,0 4,0 2,0 4,0 4,0 3,0 2,0

Security 10,0% 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,2


3,3 3,4 3,4 2,9 3,2 3,2 3,0 3,4

Availability of IDE 35,0% 2,0 3,0 4,0 4,0 2,0 2,0 1,0 3,0

Technical knowledge available at partner 25,0% 3,0 2,0 4,0 4,0 1,0 2,0 1,0 3,0

COTS selection 40,0% 2,0 3,0 4,0 4,0 2,0 3,0 3,0 1,0


2,3 2,8 4,0 4,0 1,8 2,4 1,8 2,2

2,8 3,1 3,7 3,4 2,5 2,8 2,4 2,8

SWIM Criteria

SWIM SUIT

Criteria Score

SWIM Criteria Score

Average of SWIM & SWIM-SUIT Criteria

Publish/Subscribe

SWIM-SUIT Criteria Score

Request/Reply

Why this technologies

• Matrix is useful, but there is not clear “winner” technology (most could work)

• A mix of pragmatic reasons (see 3 last criteria) plus research interest has influenced to choose:– Web Services (request/reply)– DDS (publish/subscribe)– JMS (publish subscribe)

For request/reply pattern:

Web services (J2EE) and ESB Req/Rep have been considered substantially equivalent for the SWIM criteria

For the prototype implementation a better knowledge by the partners leads to Web Service selection.

For publish/subscribe pattern:

DDS has been considered more suitable with respect to efficiency, network performance group criteria (better QoS support, scalability …)

For the prototype implementation a better availability of IDE integration and maturity of technology leads to experiment both JMS then DDS.

One of the objectives of the SWIM-SUIT is to demonstrate technology independence of the solution

Why this technologies

Why 2 technologies for publish subscribe

• One of the objectives of the SWIM-SUIT is to demonstrate technology independence of the solution

• We plan to run the publish/subscribe scenarios with any of the two technologies:– DDS– JMS

SWIM-SUIT SWIM-SUIT ICOG Tecnology SelectionICOG Tecnology Selection

13/05/2008 WP2.4 Meeting, Bruxelles

Technology candidatesTechnology candidates

• CORBA• OMG Data Distribution Service (DDS)• Web services• JMS compliant MOM• Distributed database• FTP

15/05/2008 AP4 Meeting, Bruxelles

Introduction – Technology Introduction – Technology decisionsdecisions

• Several technology decision:

– Technology for describing the payload

– Technology for providing request/reply pattern– Technology for providing publish/subscribe

pattern

For FO and ENV data


Selection criteria - Selection criteria - Technical CapabilityTechnical Capability

• Support Request/Reply– That feature measures the availability to

support the service/response pattern

• Support publish/subscribe– That feature measures the availability of a

data distribution (one to many) service in the technology

• WAN failure recovery– That feature measures the ability of the

technology to provide backup strategies in case of WAN failure


Selection criteria - Selection criteria - PerformancesPerformances

• Performances on WAN request/reply– This criterion measures the behaviour of the

technology when processing a service request through a wide area network. This behaviour is measured regarding its latency times, capacity figures, response times

• Performances on WAN pub/sub– This criterion measures the behaviour of the

technology when publishing or subscribing to events through a wide area network. This behaviour is measured regarding its latency times, capacity figures, response times

• Multi-cast– This criterion determines if the technology allows

messages distribution by the IP multicast protocol


Selection criteria - Selection criteria - Portability & evolutivity Portability & evolutivity

(1/2)(1/2)• Multi-OS supported

– This criterion measures the ability of the technology to be implemented over different operative systems

• Multi-language supported– This criterion measures the range of programming

languages that can implement the technology

• Multi-versioning/extensibility– This criterion measures the ability of the technology

to face multiples IOP interfaces at the same time and also the capability to support the increments in the number of IOP stakeholders and their interfaces


Selection criteria - Selection criteria - Portability & evolutivity Portability & evolutivity

(2/2)(2/2)• Standardized multi-source solution and

protocol interoperability– That feature measures whether or not all the actors

must use a unique solution. A standard based solution provided by several vendors is preferable. It evaluates, in case the technology requires third party vendors, the availability of several sources

• Evolutivity of infrastructure– This criterion measures the ability of the technology

to be adapted or keeping on working upon potential infrastructure changes


Selection criteria - Selection criteria - SecuritySecurity

• Security (authentication)– This criterion measures the capability of the

technology to provide an efficient method for identifying the users of the IOP network

• Data Security (encryption)– This criterion measures the capability of the

technology to provide a method of data encryption that avoids non-authorized users to decrypt and understand the data being transferred


Selection criteria - Cost Selection criteria - Cost relatedrelated

• Cost to purchase– That criterion evaluates the relative cost to

acquire development and/or runtime licences in case the technology requires a COTS with charge

• Administration & maintenance– This criterion measures the technology-

derived cost related to administration, deployment and maintenance operations or even IOP functionality or capabilities upgrade


Selection criteria - IT Selection criteria - IT market relatedmarket related

• Maturity– This criterion is used to evaluate the grade of

the confidence that the technology has acquired through its use in other successful projects and the grade of standardization that it has reached

• Forecasted market impact– This criterion is used to evaluate the expected

level of use of the technology in the Information Technology (IT) market in the coming years. This criterion is defined to reflect how emerging technologies that may not be very widely adopted today might pick-up as the solution of tomorrow


Selection criteria – Selection criteria – ProgrammaticProgrammatic

• Consistency with CoFlight/iTEC middleware– That criterion evaluates the suitability of

the IOP middleware with regards to the internal system middleware


clientclientWANWAN

serverserverf(x)f(x)

UDDIbrokerbroker

WSDLWSDL

SOAP SOAP

Analysis – Web Services Analysis – Web Services XML (Req./Rep.)XML (Req./Rep.)

• The W3C defines a Web service as a software system designed to support interoperable Machine to Machine interaction over a network.

• Web Services provide a standard means of interoperating between different software applications, running on a variety of platforms and/or frameworks – Great interoperability and extensibility– Natively based on XML– Can be combined in a loosely coupled way in order to

achieve complex operations Thanks to SOAP protocol,

platform independent Language independent Extensible


Analysis – DDS XML Analysis – DDS XML (Pub./Sub.)(Pub./Sub.)

• Data-centric communication model assures efficient data distribution, with robust and highly configurable capabilities– Rich set of QoS:

• Durability, Reliability, Timeliness, Partition, Ownership, Resource_limits …

– Interoperability between vendors assured by RTPS Wire Protocol

– DDS is widely considered as the future technology for data distribution over large distributed networks with a large market impact.

• Use of XML payload strategy overcome multi-versioning and interface evolution issues that are present using IDL


Benchmarking resultsBenchmarking resultsCriteria Weight

DDSIDL

DDSXML

JMScompliant

MOM

CORBA notifica.

IDL

CORBAnotifica.

XML

Distributed

database

CORBAIDL

CORBAXML

Web Servicesover HTTP

Technical Capability 10%Support Data Distribution 5,0% 5 5 3 3 3 0 0 0Support Request 5,0% 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5WAN failure recovery 5,0% 5 5 2 2 2 4 4 4

Perfos 15%Performances on WAN request/reply 15,0% 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 3Performances on WAN pub/sub 7,5% 5 4 3 3 2 0 0 0Multi-cast 7,5% 5 5 3 1 1 0 0 0

Portability & evolutivity 30%Multi-OS suppported 2,5% 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5Muti-language supported 2,5% 4 4 2 5 5 5 5 4Multiversionning/extensibility 10,0% 2 4 4 2 4 2 4 4Standardized multi-source solution 10,0% 3 3 2 4 4 4 4 5Evolutivity of infrastructure 5,0% 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5

Security 10%Security (authentication) 5,0% 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3Data Security (encryption) 5,0% 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3

Cost related 15%Cost to purchase 7,5% 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 5Administration & maintenance 7,5% 4 4 2 3 3 4 4 4

IT market related 15%Maturity 7,5% 2 2 3 5 5 5 5 5Forecasted market impact 7,5% 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 5

Programmatic 5%Consistency with CoFlight/Itec middleware

5,0%5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3

Check 100% Result 353 373 310 325 338 0 390 395 415

Ranking 2 1 5 4 3 6 3 2 1

Request/ReplyPublish/Subscribe


ConclusionsConclusions

• FO Distribution and Dynamic ENV data– XML on DDS thus combining the flexibility and evolutivity

features of XML together with performance and reliability features of DDS

• FO Request– Web Services considered as a more forward-looking

solution by the ATM community– XML on DDS

• Static ENV Data– AIXM on JMS (SonicMQ) (adopting already existing

solutions??)


Thanks

swim-suit & icog technology selection dario di crescenzo (selex si) david scarlatti (boeing)...

Documents

swim criteria

swimsuit criteria

redundancy34 technology

redundancy12 technology

different criteria

swim project

related requirements

service requirements