Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > A comparison of static and dynamic component mo...

Research

Associated organisational units

Electronic data

View graph of relations

A comparison of static and dynamic component models for Wireless Sensor Networks

Research output: Contribution in Book/Report/Proceedings - With ISBN/ISSN › Conference contribution/Paper › peer-review

Published

Standard

A comparison of static and dynamic component models for Wireless Sensor Networks. / Porter, Barry; Roedig, Utz; Taiani, Francois et al.
Proceedings of the The First International Workshop on Networks of Cooperating Objects (CONET2010). 2010.

Research output: Contribution in Book/Report/Proceedings - With ISBN/ISSN › Conference contribution/Paper › peer-review

Harvard

Porter, B, Roedig, U, Taiani, F & Coulson, G 2010, A comparison of static and dynamic component models for Wireless Sensor Networks. in Proceedings of the The First International Workshop on Networks of Cooperating Objects (CONET2010). Proceedings of the The First International Workshop on Networks of Cooperating Objects (CONET2010), Stockholm, Sweden, 1/01/00.

APA

Porter, B., Roedig, U., Taiani, F., & Coulson, G. (2010). A comparison of static and dynamic component models for Wireless Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of the The First International Workshop on Networks of Cooperating Objects (CONET2010)

Vancouver

Porter B, Roedig U, Taiani F, Coulson G. A comparison of static and dynamic component models for Wireless Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of the The First International Workshop on Networks of Cooperating Objects (CONET2010). 2010

Author

Porter, Barry ; Roedig, Utz ; Taiani, Francois et al. / A comparison of static and dynamic component models for Wireless Sensor Networks. Proceedings of the The First International Workshop on Networks of Cooperating Objects (CONET2010). 2010.

Bibtex

@inproceedings{b60a0ca1e7e645f296b56e20ced38d1e,
title = "A comparison of static and dynamic component models for Wireless Sensor Networks",
abstract = "In this paper we provide a detailed discussion and evaluation of the theoretical and practical differences between static and dynamic component models as the foundations of programming wireless sensor nodes. As the static benchmark we examine the nesC component model underpinning TinyOS; and as the dynamic benchmark we examine the OpenCom component model underpinning the Lorien operating system. Both models are well established in their respective domains and have at least 2nd generation implementations available. We identify 4 key mechanisms required by the dynamic approach beyond those needed by the static approach, and using the TelosB implementations of both models we demonstrate the performance differences involved in the support of each of these mechanisms. We conclude that while the static approach has inevitably better performance, the overhead of the dynamic approach is suffciently low that it is a promising foundation in support of future WSN research in dynamic and adaptive systems.",
author = "Barry Porter and Utz Roedig and Francois Taiani and Geoffrey Coulson",
year = "2010",
month = apr,
language = "English",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the The First International Workshop on Networks of Cooperating Objects (CONET2010)",
note = "Proceedings of the The First International Workshop on Networks of Cooperating Objects (CONET2010), Stockholm, Sweden ; Conference date: 01-01-1900",

}

RIS

TY - GEN

T1 - A comparison of static and dynamic component models for Wireless Sensor Networks

AU - Porter, Barry

AU - Roedig, Utz

AU - Taiani, Francois

AU - Coulson, Geoffrey

PY - 2010/4

Y1 - 2010/4

N2 - In this paper we provide a detailed discussion and evaluation of the theoretical and practical differences between static and dynamic component models as the foundations of programming wireless sensor nodes. As the static benchmark we examine the nesC component model underpinning TinyOS; and as the dynamic benchmark we examine the OpenCom component model underpinning the Lorien operating system. Both models are well established in their respective domains and have at least 2nd generation implementations available. We identify 4 key mechanisms required by the dynamic approach beyond those needed by the static approach, and using the TelosB implementations of both models we demonstrate the performance differences involved in the support of each of these mechanisms. We conclude that while the static approach has inevitably better performance, the overhead of the dynamic approach is suffciently low that it is a promising foundation in support of future WSN research in dynamic and adaptive systems.

AB - In this paper we provide a detailed discussion and evaluation of the theoretical and practical differences between static and dynamic component models as the foundations of programming wireless sensor nodes. As the static benchmark we examine the nesC component model underpinning TinyOS; and as the dynamic benchmark we examine the OpenCom component model underpinning the Lorien operating system. Both models are well established in their respective domains and have at least 2nd generation implementations available. We identify 4 key mechanisms required by the dynamic approach beyond those needed by the static approach, and using the TelosB implementations of both models we demonstrate the performance differences involved in the support of each of these mechanisms. We conclude that while the static approach has inevitably better performance, the overhead of the dynamic approach is suffciently low that it is a promising foundation in support of future WSN research in dynamic and adaptive systems.

M3 - Conference contribution/Paper

BT - Proceedings of the The First International Workshop on Networks of Cooperating Objects (CONET2010)

T2 - Proceedings of the The First International Workshop on Networks of Cooperating Objects (CONET2010), Stockholm, Sweden

Y2 - 1 January 1900

ER -