-
On the Serverless Nature of Blockchains and Smart Contracts
Authors:
Vladimir Yussupov,
Ghareeb Falazi,
Uwe Breitenbücher,
Frank Leymann
Abstract:
Although historically the term serverless was also used in the context of peer-to-peer systems, it is more frequently associated with the architectural style for develo** cloud-native applications. From the developer's perspective, serverless architectures allow reducing management efforts since applications are composed using provider-managed components, e.g., Database-as-a-Service (DBaaS) and…
▽ More
Although historically the term serverless was also used in the context of peer-to-peer systems, it is more frequently associated with the architectural style for develo** cloud-native applications. From the developer's perspective, serverless architectures allow reducing management efforts since applications are composed using provider-managed components, e.g., Database-as-a-Service (DBaaS) and Function-as-a-Service (FaaS) offerings. Blockchains are distributed systems designed to enable collaborative scenarios involving multiple untrusted parties. It seems that the decentralized peer-to-peer nature of blockchains makes it interesting to consider them in serverless architectures, since resource allocation and management tasks are not required to be performed by users. Moreover, considering their useful properties of ensuring transaction's immutability and facilitating accountable interactions, blockchains might enhance the overall guarantees and capabilities of serverless architectures. Therefore, in this work, we analyze how the blockchain technology and smart contracts fit into the serverless picture and derive a set of scenarios in which they act as different component types in serverless architectures. Furthermore, we formulate the implementation requirements that have to be fulfilled to successfully use blockchains and smart contracts in these scenarios. Finally, we investigate which existing technologies enable these scenarios, and analyze their readiness and suitability to fulfill the formulated requirements.
△ Less
Submitted 24 November, 2020;
originally announced November 2020.
-
FaaSten Your Decisions: Classification Framework and Technology Review of Function-as-a-Service Platforms
Authors:
Vladimir Yussupov,
Jacopo Soldani,
Uwe Breitenbücher,
Antonio Brogi,
Frank Leymann
Abstract:
Function-as-a-Service (FaaS) is a cloud service model enabling developers to offload event-driven executable snippets of code. The execution and management of such functions becomes a FaaS provider's responsibility, hereby included their on-demand provisioning and automatic scaling. Key enablers for this cloud service model are FaaS platforms, e.g., AWS Lambda, Microsoft Azure Functions or OpenFaa…
▽ More
Function-as-a-Service (FaaS) is a cloud service model enabling developers to offload event-driven executable snippets of code. The execution and management of such functions becomes a FaaS provider's responsibility, hereby included their on-demand provisioning and automatic scaling. Key enablers for this cloud service model are FaaS platforms, e.g., AWS Lambda, Microsoft Azure Functions or OpenFaaS. At the same time, the choice of the most appropriate FaaS platform for deploying and running a serverless application is not trivial, as various organizational and technical aspects have to be taken into account. In this work, we present (i) a FaaS platform classification framework derived using a mixed method study and (ii) a systematic technology review of the ten most prominent FaaS platforms, based on the proposed classification framework. Moreover, we present (iii) a FaaS platform selection support system, called \faastener, which helps researchers and practitioners to choose the FaaS platform most suited for their requirements.
△ Less
Submitted 1 April, 2020;
originally announced April 2020.
-
Pattern Views: Concept and Tooling for Interconnected Pattern Languages
Authors:
Manuela Weigold,
Johanna Barzen,
Uwe Breitenbücher,
Michael Falkenthal,
Frank Leymann,
Karoline Wild
Abstract:
Patterns describe proven solutions for recurring problems. Typically, patterns in a particular domain are interrelated and organized in pattern languages. As real-world problems often require patterns of multiple domains, different pattern languages have to be considered to address these problems. However, cross-domain knowledge about how patterns of different languages relate to each other is eit…
▽ More
Patterns describe proven solutions for recurring problems. Typically, patterns in a particular domain are interrelated and organized in pattern languages. As real-world problems often require patterns of multiple domains, different pattern languages have to be considered to address these problems. However, cross-domain knowledge about how patterns of different languages relate to each other is either hidden in individual pattern descriptions or not documented at all. This makes it difficult to identify relevant patterns across pattern languages. Therefore, we introduce a concept and tooling that enables to capture patterns and their relations across pattern languages for a particular problem context.
△ Less
Submitted 20 March, 2020;
originally announced March 2020.
-
Transactional Properties of Permissioned Blockchains
Authors:
Ghareeb Falazi,
Vikas Khinchi,
Uwe Breitenbücher,
Frank Leymann
Abstract:
Traditional distributed transaction processing (TP) systems, such as replicated databases, faced difficulties in getting wide adoption for scenarios of enterprise integration due to the level of mutual trust required. Ironically, public blockchains, which promised to solve the problem of mutual trust in collaborative processes, suffer from issues like scalability, probabilistic transaction finalit…
▽ More
Traditional distributed transaction processing (TP) systems, such as replicated databases, faced difficulties in getting wide adoption for scenarios of enterprise integration due to the level of mutual trust required. Ironically, public blockchains, which promised to solve the problem of mutual trust in collaborative processes, suffer from issues like scalability, probabilistic transaction finality, and lack of data confidentiality. To tackle these issues, permissioned blockchains were introduced as an alternative approach combining the positives of the two worlds and avoiding their drawbacks. However, no sufficient analysis has been done to emphasize their actual capabilities regarding TP. In this paper, we identify a suitable collection of TP criteria to analyze permissioned blockchains and apply them to a prominent set of these systems. Finally, we compare the derived properties and provide general conclusions.
△ Less
Submitted 28 August, 2019; v1 submitted 30 July, 2019;
originally announced July 2019.
-
The Essential Deployment Metamodel: A Systematic Review of Deployment Automation Technologies
Authors:
Michael Wurster,
Uwe Breitenbücher,
Michael Falkenthal,
Christoph Krieger,
Frank Leymann,
Karoline Saatkamp,
Jacopo Soldani
Abstract:
In recent years, a plethora of deployment technologies evolved, many following a declarative approach to automate the delivery of software components. Even if such technologies share the same purpose, they differ in features and supported mechanisms. Thus, it is difficult to compare and select deployment automation technologies as well as to migrate from one technology to another. Hence, we presen…
▽ More
In recent years, a plethora of deployment technologies evolved, many following a declarative approach to automate the delivery of software components. Even if such technologies share the same purpose, they differ in features and supported mechanisms. Thus, it is difficult to compare and select deployment automation technologies as well as to migrate from one technology to another. Hence, we present a systematic review of declarative deployment technologies and introduce the Essential Deployment Metamodel (EDMM) by extracting the essential parts that are supported by all these technologies. Thereby, the EDMM enables a common understanding of declarative deployment models by facilitating the comparison, selection, and migration of technologies. Moreover, it provides a technology-independent baseline for further deployment automation research.
△ Less
Submitted 10 September, 2019; v1 submitted 17 May, 2019;
originally announced May 2019.
