Analysis of a Conflict between Aggregation and Interface Negotiation in Microsoft's Component Object Model

Many software projects today are based on the integration of independently designed software components that are acquired on the market, rather than developed within the project itself. A component standard, or integration architecture, is a set of design rules meant to ensure that such components can be integrated in defined ways without undue effort. The rules of a component standard define, among other things, component interoperability and composition mechanisms. Understanding the properties of such mechanisms and interactions between them is important for the successful development and integration of software components, as well as for the evolution of component standards. This paper presents a rigorous analysis of two such mechanisms: component aggregation and dynamic interface negotiation, which were first introduced in Microsoft’s Component Object Model (COM). We show that interface negotiation does not function properly within COM aggregation boundaries. In particular, interface negotiation generally cannot be used to determine the identity and set of capabilities of aggregated components. This complicates integration within aggregates. We provide a mediator-based example, and show that the problem is in the sharing of interfaces inherent in COM aggregation.