4.1 SWIM-SUIT & ICOG Technology Selection

7/27/2019 4.1 SWIM-SUIT & ICOG Technology Selection

1/38

SWIM-SUIT & ICOGTechnology SelectionDario Di Crescenzo (Selex SI)

David Scarlatti (Boeing)

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


2/38

Overall SWIM-SUIT TechnologySelection Process

15/05/2008 AP4/SWIM Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) 2

Requirements

(WP 1.5)

Set of Criteria

Scenarios

(WP 1.6)

Architectural

Patterns

Candidate

Technologies

Selection

Matrix


3/38

Set of Criteria for evaluation oftechnologies


Requirements

Set of Criteria

Technical knowledge available at partner

Applicability for Wide Area Network (WAN)

Scalability

Robustness

Flexibility

ReliabilityMessage 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 topicshaving 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


4/38

Scalability

Robustness

Use of standardMessage 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.



5/38



5.4 ROBUSTNESSSection 3.2.3 of "Information Content and Service Requirements" definesrobustness and details eleven requirements for SWIM. Some of theserequirements 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 witherroneous or corrupt data (invalid input). Here we consider the impact of the

requirements on the underlying technologies to be used; mainly its level ofsupport to distributed and redundant architectures.Robustness can be improved too if the technology shows some self-testingcapabilities .

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 ofstability (support invalid inputs gracefully)


6/38

Architectural Patterns fromscenarios


synchronous

coupled

Request /

Reply

asynchronous

decoupled

Publish /Subscribe

Scenarios

(WP 1.6)

Architectural

Patterns


7/38

Initial Candidate Technologies


COMMON OBJECT REQUEST BROKER ARCHITECTURE (CORBA)

DATA DISTRIBUTION SERVICE (DDS)

J2EE CONNECTOR ARCHITECTURE (JCA)

ENTERPRISE SERVICE BUS (ESB)

WEB SERVICES

ELECTRONIC BUSINESS USING EXTENSIBLE MARKUPLANGUAGE (EBXML)

MESSAGE ORIENTED MIDDLEWARE (MOM)

COLLABORATIVE DATABASES


8/38







WEB SERVICES

ELECTRONIC BUSINESSUSINGEXTENSIBLE MARKUP LANGUAGE (EBXML)


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


9/38







WEB SERVICES




JCA connectors are not furthersince they seems a weakalternative to other technologieslike CORBA or Web Services


10/38







WEB SERVICES




JCA connectors are not furthersince they seems a weakalternative to other technologieslike CORBA or Web Services

WebServices and ebXML are using the sametechnology , Web Services are more flexible


11/38

Final Candidate Technologies


COMMON OBJECT REQUEST BROKER ARCHITECTURE(CORBA)



WEB SERVICES



12/38

Final Candidate Technologies.vs. Architectural Patterns


CORBA ESB Web services (J2EE)Request / Reply

JMS Web services Notification ESB CORBA Notification Service DDS

Publish / Subscribe


13/38

Split of set of Criteria forevaluation of technologies


Applicability for Wide Area Network (WAN)ScalabilityRobustnessFlexibilityReliability

Message overheadPortabilityManageabilityInteroperabilitySuitability for Near Real TimeUse of standardsSupport for Security

Availability of IDETechnical knowledge available at partnerCOTS selection

SWIM

Criteria

SWIM-SUITCriteria


14/38

Selection Matrix


Criteria Weight CORBA

ESB

Request/

Reply

Web

services

(J2EE) MOM (JMS)

Web

services

Notification

ESB

Publish/

Subscribe

CORBA

Notification

Service DDS

Applicabil ity 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

Availab ility 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 s election 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


15/38

Selection Matrix



ESB

Request/

Reply

Web

services

(J2EE)

Applicabi lity for Wide Area Network (WAN) 10,0% 3,0 3,0 2,0

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

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

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

Reliability 5,0% 4,0 3,0 4,0Robustness 10,0% 3,0 4,0 4,0

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

Efficiency 30,0% 1,0 1,0 1,0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


3,3 3,4 3,4

SWIM

Criteria

SWIM Criteria Score

Request/Reply


16/38

Selection Matrix


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

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

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


2,3 2,8 4,0

SWIM

SUITCriteria

Score



ESB

Request/

Reply

Web

services

(J2EE)

Request/Reply


17/38

Selection Matrix


MOM (JMS)

Web

services

Notification

ESB

Publish/

Subscribe

CORBA

Notification

Service DDS

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

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

0,5 0,4 0,6 0,5 0,8

1,0 1,0 2,0 1,0 4,0

4,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 4,0

4,0 4,0 4,0 3,0 4,0

3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 4,0

1,0 1,0 1,0 0,8 1,2

3,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 3,0

3,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 3,0

2,0 3,0 2,0 3,0 3,0

0,5 0,7 0,6 0,6 0,64,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0

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

0,7 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,6

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

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

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

Publish/Subscribe

Criteria Weight

Applicab ility for Wide Area Network (WAN) 10,0%

Message overhead 10,0%

Network Performance 20,0%

Suitability for Near Real Tim e 5,0%

Reliability 5,0%

Robustness 10,0%

Scalability 10,0%

Efficiency 30,0%

Flexibility 6,5%

Manageability 6,5%

Portability 7,0%

Mantainability and Management 20,0%Interoperability 10,0%

Use of standards 10,0%

Stability and evolutivity 20,0%

Support for Security 10,0%

Security 10,0%


SWIM

Criteria

SWIM Criteria Score


18/38

Selection Matrix


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

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

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

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

Availability of IDE 35,0%

Technical knowledge available at partner 25,0%

COTS selection 40,0%


SWIM

SUIT

Criteria

Score


Criteria Weight MOM (JMS)

Web

services

Notification

ESB

Publish/

Subscribe

CORBA

Notification

Service DDS

Publish/Subscribe


19/38

Selection Matrix FinalSelection



ESB

Request/

Reply

Web

services

(J2EE) MOM (JMS)

Web

services

Notification

ESB

Publish/

Subscribe

CORBA

Notification

Service DDS

Applicabil ity 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

Availab ility 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 s election 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


Request/Reply


20/38

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)


21/38

For request/reply pattern:

Web services (J2EE) and ESBReq/Rep have been consideredsubstantially equivalent for theSWIM criteria

For the prototypeimplementation a betterknowledge by the partnersleads to Web Service selection.

For publish/subscribe pattern:

DDS has been considered moresuitable with respect toefficiency, network performancegroup criteria (better QoS

support, scalability ) For the prototype

implementation a betteravailability of IDE integrationand maturity of technology leadsto experiment both JMS then

DDS. One of the objectives of the

SWIM-SUIT is to demonstratetechnology independence of thesolution

Why this technologies


22/38

Why 2 technologies for publishsubscribe 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


23/38

SWIM-SUITICOG Tecnology Selection

13/05/2008 WP2.4 Meeting, Bruxelles


24/38

Technology candidates CORBA OMG Data Distribution Service (DDS)

Web services

JMS compliant MOM

Distributed database

FTP

15/05/2008 AP4 Meeting, Bruxelles


25/38

Introduction Technology decisions 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



26/38

Selection criteria - TechnicalCapability Support Request/Reply

That feature measures the availability to support

the service/response pattern

Support publish/subscribe That feature measures the availability of a datadistribution (one to many) service in the technology

WAN failure recovery

That feature measures the ability of the technologyto provide backup strategies in case of WAN

failure



27/38

Selection criteria - Performances Performances on WAN request/reply

This criterion measures the behaviour of the technologywhen processing a service request through a wide areanetwork. This behaviour is measured regarding its latencytimes, 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 areanetwork. This behaviour is measured regarding its latencytimes, capacity figures, response times

Multi-cast This criterion determines if the technology allows messagesdistribution by the IP multicast protocol



28/38

Selection criteria - Portability &evolutivity (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 languagesthat 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



29/38

Selection criteria - Portability &evolutivity (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 infrastructurechanges



30/38

Selection criteria - Security 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



31/38

Selection criteria - Cost related 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



32/38

Selection criteria - IT marketrelated 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. Thiscriterion is defined to reflect how emerging

technologies that may not be very widely adopted

today might pick-up as the solution of tomorrow



33/38

Selection criteria Programmatic Consistency with CoFlight/iTEC

middleware

That criterion evaluates the suitability of the

IOP middleware with regards to the internalsystem middleware



34/38

Analysis Web Services 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/orframeworks

Great interoperability and extensibility

Natively based on XML

Can be combined in a loosely coupled way in order to achievecomplex operations

Thanks to SOAP protocol,platform independent

Language independent

Extensible



35/38

Analysis DDS XML (Pub./Sub.) Data-centric communication model assures efficientdata 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 arepresent using IDL



36/38

Benchmarking resultsCriteria Weight

DDS

IDL

DDS

XML

JMS

compliant

MOM

CORBA

notifica.

IDL

CORBA

notifica.

XML

Distribute

d

database

CORBA

IDL

CORBA

XML

Web Services

over HTTP

Technical Capability 10%Support Data Distribution 5,0% 5 5 3 3 3 0 0 0

Support Request 5,0% 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5

WAN 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 3

Performances on WAN pub/sub 7,5% 5 4 3 3 2 0 0 0

Multi-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 5

Muti-language supported 2,5% 4 4 2 5 5 5 5 4Multiversionning/extensibility 10,0% 2 4 4 2 4 2 4 4

Standardized multi-source solution 10,0% 3 3 2 4 4 4 4 5

Evolutivity 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 3

Data 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 5

Administration & 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 5

Forecasted market impact 7,5% 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 5

Programmatic 5%Consistency with CoFlight/Itec

middleware5,0%

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



37/38

Conclusions FO Distribution and Dynamic ENV data

XML on DDS thus combining the flexibility and evolutivity features ofXML 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??)



38/38

Thanks

4.1 SWIM-SUIT & ICOG Technology Selection

Documents

Transcript of 4.1 SWIM-SUIT & ICOG Technology Selection