You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
We present our approach for deploying and managing distributed component-based applications. A Desired State Description (DSD), written in a high-level declarative language, specifies requirements for a distributed application. Our infrastructure accepts a DSD as input, and from it automatically configures and deploys the distributed application. Subsequent violations of the original requirements are detected and, where possible, automatically rectified by reconfiguration and redeployment of the necessary application components. A constraint solving tool is used to plan deployments that meet the application requirements.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: Numerous architectural description languages (ADLs) have been developed, each providing complementary capabilities for architectural development and analysis. Unfortunately, each ADL and supporting toolset operates in isolation, making it difficult to integrate those tools and share architectural descriptions. Acme is being developed as a joint effort of the software architecture research community as a common interchange format for architecture design tools. Acme provides a structural framework for characterizing architectures, together with annotation facilities for additional ADL-specific information. This scheme permits subsets of ADL tools to share architectural information that is jointly understood, while tolerating the presence of information that falls outside their common vocabulary. In this paper we describe Acme's key features, rationale, and technical innovations.

[2]: Architectures for software use rich abstractions and idioms to describe system components, the nature of interactions among the components, and the patterns that guide the composition of components into systems. These abstractions are higher level than the elements usually supported by programming languages and tools. They capture packaging and interaction issues as well as computational functionality. Well-established (if informal) patterns guide the architectural design of systems. We sketch a model for defining architectures and present an implementation of the basic level of that model. Our purpose is to support the abstractions used in practice by software designers. The implementation provides a testbed for experiments with a variety of system construction mechanisms. It distinguishes among different types of components and different ways these components can interact. It supports abstract interactions such as data flow and scheduling on the same footing as simple procedure call. It can express and check appropriate compatibility restrictions and configuration constraints. It accepts existing code as components, incurring no runtime overhead after initialization. It allows easy incorporation of specifications and associated analysis tools developed elsewhere. The implementation provides a base for extending the notation and validating the model. >

[3]: A method is presented for the stepwise refinement of an abstract architecture into a relatively correct lower-level architecture that is intended to implement it. A refinement step involves the application of a predefined refinement pattern that provides a routine solution to a standard architectural design problem. A pattern contains an abstract architecture schema and a more detailed schema intended to implement it. The two schemas usually contain very different architectural concepts (from different architectural styles). Once a refinement pattern is proven correct, instances of it can be used without proof in developing specific architectures. Individual refinements are compositional, permitting incremental development and local reasoning. A special correctness criterion is defined for the domain of software architecture, as well as an accompanying proof technique. A useful syntactic form of correct composition is defined. The main points are illustrated by means of familiar architectures for a compiler. A prototype implementation of the method has been used successfully in a real application. >

[4]: Continuous availability is a critical requirement for an important class of software systems. For these systems, runtime system evolution can mitigate the costs and risks associated with shutting down and restarting the system for an update. We present an architecture-based approach to runtime software evolution and highlight the role of software connectors in supporting runtime change. An initial implementation of a tool suite for supporting the runtime modification of software architectures, called ArchStudio, is presented.
A number of languages have been developed to describe software architectures, including [3] [4] [2] . Typical of these is Acme [1] , which is intended to fulfil three roles: to provide an architectural interchange format for design tools, to provide a foundation for the design of new tools and to support architectural modelling. The Acme language supports the description of components joined via connectors, providing a variety of communication styles. Components and connectors may be annotated with properties that specify various attributes. Acme also supports a logical formalism based on relations and constraints that permits computational or run-time behaviour to be associated with the description of architectures. Acme does not, however, support the deployment of systems from the architectural descriptions, nor does it express constraints on physical resources.