TRANSACTIONAL BEHAVIOR VERIFICATION IN BUSINESS PROCESS AS A SERVICE CONFIGURATION
ABSTRACT
Business Process as a Service (BPaaS) is an emerging type of cloud service that offers configurable and executablebusiness processes to clients over the Internet. As BPaaS is still in early years of research, many open issues remain. Managingthe configuration of BPaaS builds on areas such as software product lines and configurable business processes. The problem hasconcerns to consider from several perspectives, such as the different types of variable features, constraints between configurationoptions, and satisfying the requirements provided by the client. In our approach, we use temporal logic templates to elicittransactional requirements from clients that the configured service must adhere to. For formalizing constraints over configuration,feature models are used. To manage all these concerns during BPaaS configuration, we develop a structured process thatapplies formal methods while directing clients through specifying transactional requirements and selecting configurable features.The Binary Decision Diagram (BDD) analysis is then used to verify that the selected configurable features do not violate anyconstraints. Finally, model checking is applied to verify the configured service against the transactional requirement set. Wedemonstrate the feasibility of our approach with several validation scenarios and performance evaluations.
EXITING SYSTEM:
There is an increasing research interest in relatedareas such as configurable cloud service applications, and configurable or adaptive business processmodels. Based on our analysis ofrelated work as well as the various uses of BPaaSasoutlined by the scenarios in Section 4, we identify a setof criteria, and group them in twocategories, namely, Support, focused on the modelingof the business process, and Correctness, focused onthe verification of process correctness.The Support criteria is related to the business processexpressiveness enabled by the approach. TheProcess Formalism criterion identifies how the approachexpresses business processes. If business processstructures are not explicitly incorporated in theapproach, the value is left blank. The next criteriaspecify whether it is capable of modeling resource anddata and configurability. Finally, the means of expressingdomain constraints are identified for comparison.Correctness Criteria identifies the properties that areensured during the configuration or adaptation approach.Process model criteria refers to structural orbehavioral correctness of the process model, such assoundness or syntactical correctness. Someapproaches may also analyze the configurability of themodel to identify issues such as contradictions or circulardependencies. The final criterion identifiesthe client requirements that are input into the process,such as selections of features , or more complexbehavioral requirements
PROPOSED SYSTEM:
we propose a three-stepconfiguration and verification process which relies ona modeling paradigm. Such paradigm allows us tocapture transactional requirements and subsequentlyverify them. Our approach is expressive and relativelyeasy to use by stakeholders, while at the same timebeing sufficiently rigorous to allow us to apply formalmethods for verification.
CONCLUSION
The increase in cloud computing adaptations in recentyears has produced the concept of Business Processas a Service (BPaaS), whereby service providersareable to offer common or proven business processes toclients looking to automate and/or outsource parts oftheir operations. We address the problem of managingBPaaS configuration in a way to ensure that theresulting service i) is valid with respect to configurationconstraints of the provider, and ii) satisfiestransactional requirements drawn from the businessrules of the client. Our approach utilizes several modellingtechniques, including BPMN for business processstructure, statechartsfor transactional state, featuremodels for configuration constraints. Using thesemodels, we develop a BPaaS configuration processthat applies Binary Decision Diagram (BDD) analysisand model checking. BDD analysis ensures that BPaaSfeatures selected during configuration do not violatethe domain constraints of the service provider, whilemodel checking verifies the configured BPaaSagainsttransactional requirements provided by the client. Toreduce the impact of state-space explosion, we employa state-space reduction algorithm and split the modelchecking into two phases. These phases verify differentconfiguration perspectives separately, and allowfor the state space and temporal logic properties to bereduced further. Our performance analysis shows thatthe proposed configuration method is capable of verifyingmodels with hundreds of activities, resources,data objects, and requirement sets within seconds.\
REFERENCES
[1] S. Bouchenak, G. Chockler, H. Chockler, G. Gheorghe, N. Santos,and A. Shraer, “Verifying cloud services: present andfuture,” SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, vol. 47, no. 2, 2013.
[2] S. Marston, Z. Li, S. Bandyopadhyay, J. Zhang, and A. Ghalsasi,“Cloud Computing The Business Perspective,” DecisionSupport Systems, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 176–189, 2011.
[3] Q. Zhang, L. Cheng, and R. Boutaba, “Cloud Computing:State-of-the-Art and Research Challenges,” Journal of InternetServices and Applications, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 7–18, 2010.
[4] M. Armbrust, A. Fox, R. Griffith, A. D. Joseph, R. Katz,A. Konwinski, G. Lee, D. Patterson, A. Rabkin, and I. Stoica,“A View of Cloud Computing,” Communications of the ACM,vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 50–58, 2010.
[5] I. Kumara, J. Han, A. Colman, and M. Kapuruge, “RuntimeEvolution of Service-Based Multi-Tenant SaaSApplications,”in Service-Oriented Computing. Springer, 2013, pp. 192–206.
[6] Y. Liu, B. Zhang, G. Liu, M. Zhang, and J. Na, “EvolvingSaaS Based on Reflective Petri Nets,” in Proceedings of the7th Workshop on Reflection, AOP and Meta-Data for SoftwareEvolution. ACM, 2010, pp. 7:1–7:4. [Online].Available:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1890683.1890690
[7] J. Schroeter, S. Cech, S. G¨otz, C. Wilke, and U. Aßmann,“Towards Modeling a Variable Architecture for Multi-TenantSaaS-Applications,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Workshopon Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems. ACM,2012, pp. 111–120.
[8] R. Accorsi, “Business Process as a Service: Chances for RemoteAuditing,” in The 35th Annual Computer Software and ApplicationsConference Workshop. IEEE, 2011, pp. 398–403.
[9] S. Bourne, C. Szabo, and Q. Sheng, “Managing ConfigurableBusiness Process as a Service to Satisfy Client TransactionalRequirements,” in Proceedings of the 11th International Conferenceon Services Computing. IEEE, 2015, pp. 154–161.
[10] T. Lynn, J. Mooney, M. Helfert, D. Corcoran, G. Hunt, L. VanDerWerff, J. Morrison, and P. Healy, “Towards a Frameworkfor Defining and Categorising Business Process-As-A-Service(BPaaS),” in 21st International Product Development ManagementConference, 2014.