Comparison of Component Frameworks for Real-time Embedded Systems

Transcription

1 Comparison of Component Frameworks for Real-time Embedded Systems P. Hošek, T. Pop, T. Bureš, P. Hnětynka, M. Malohlava CHARLES UNIVERSITY PRAGUE Faculty of Mathematics and Physics Department of Distributed and Dependable Systems (CBSE 2010)

2 Lets imagine... You want to develop software for embedded devices You want to benefit from methods provided by CBSE How to select the right technology from so many existing?

3 Embedded and Real-time Devices Anywhere around us Consumer electronic Control systems Telecommunication Automotive industry Complexity is growing exponentially Distributed Tens of nodes in cars Hardware

4 Monolithic vs. Component Based Approach Systems developed monolithically Growing complexity Hard to validate and test Complicated re-usability Solution: Component-based approach System System

5 Problem: Selecting The Right Technology Many frameworks How to selected the right one? For particular purpose Compare and evaluate existing technologies Provided features, maturity, development tools, support for realtime and hardware,... => Find the right criteria + Evaluate how are the criteria met? How to evaluate the technologies?

6 Goal Define set of criteria Compare selected component-based frameworks With respect to the criteria Discus interesting ideas Evaluate the frameworks Which one is suitable for particular purpose

7 Criteria Stress demands of real-time and embedded domain Our experience From literature Features important for component-based development General issues Maturity Documentation Tools Availability

8 Criteria Real-time and Embedded Support Real-time issues Modeling real-time attributes Periodic and aperiodic tasks Real-time scheduling Suitability for embedded devices Portability HW profiles OS profiles Reasonable demands CPU Memory footprint

9 Criteria Component Model Well defined model Meta-model Precise description Advanced features Connectors Hierarchical nesting communication styles Behavioral modeling

10 Criteria Distributed Apps. and Variability Distributed applications More computational nodes Used middle-ware A B C BUS Application variability At runtime Realization

11 Criteria Development Status, Maturity Development Status Actively developed or not Maturity Tools Component application execution support

12 Criteria Documentation, Tools, Methodologies Documentation Sufficient level Model it self, Tools User programmer guide Available Tools Basic IDE Verification tools Development methodologies At least guidelines

13 Selection of Component Frameworks Only execution support Excludes modeling frameworks e. g. OMG Marte Excludes simulation tools e. g. Matlab, Simulink Only for embedded devices Excludes systems for enterprise applications e. g. CCM, EJB, COM, DCOM Selected representatives from both industrial as well as academical sphere PECOS, MyCCM-HI, PROGRESS, AUTOSAR, Pin, Koala, ROBOCOP, THINK, SOFA HI, BlueArX

14 Evaluation Information in tables could be incomplete Treat it with caution Not a benchmarking Context needed Sometimes is hard to make a or r Context and comments in the paper

15 Evaluation Real-time and Embedded Support Real-time attributes Periodic and aperiodic tasks Schedulability analysis PECOS a a was planed MyCCM-HI a a a PROGRESS a a is planed AUTOSAR a Not specified a Pin a aperiodic external Koala r r r ROBOCOP r r r THINK r r r SOFA HI a a is planed BlueArX a a a

16 Evaluation Component Model PECOS MyCCM-HI PROGRESS Hierarchical components Connectors Formal behavior or Execution Model design-time a a design-time r a design-time r a AUTOSAR a r r Pin r r a Koala design-time a a design-time a a THINK a r a SOFA HI a a a BlueArX a r a ROBOCOP

17 Evaluation Distributed Apps. and Variability Distributed applications Dynamic application architecture PECOS r r MyCCM-HI a a PROGRESS planned r AUTOSAR a r Pin r r Koala r partial ROBOCOP r partial THINK r r SOFA HI planned planned BlueArX r a

18 Evaluation Development Status Status of the framework PECOS MyCCM-HI PROGRESS AUTOSAR Pin Koala ROBOCOP THINK SOFA HI BlueArX not actively developed ready to use under development ready to use no not actively developed not actively developed ready to use under development ready to use

19 Evaluation Tools, Methodology, Documentation Tools Methodology Documentation PECOS incomplete r r basic r a MyCCM-HI PROGRESS under development r a AUTOSAR r a a Pin Koala basic r a basic r r ROBOCOP r r r THINK a r a SOFA HI under development r a BlueArX a a r

20 Conclusion No Winner for everything AUTOSAR and BlueArX for automotive domain Publicly available and ready to be used MyCCM-HI and THINK Prospective: PROGRESS and SOFA HI Model driven development Plan to support major part of criteria