The academic site of Saverio Giallorenzo
Assistant Professor at Università di Bologna
Department of Computer Science and Engineering

Thesis/Research Ideas

Here you can find a list (indexed below) of ideas/topics we (the Jolie team) had for master/bachelor thesis and research projects.

Above, the label Work in Progress means some students are undertaking or already did some work on the subject. This means that new proponents may be asked to coordinate their work.

If you are interested in working on these ideas or other topics regarding Jolie, Choreographies, Microservices, Serverless, Security, and Cloud Deployment feel free to contact me at saverio.giallorenzo[at]

A Comprehensive Testing Framework

The distributed nature of microservice architectures makes difficult to create and automatise test suites for a given architecture. Nonetheless, testing is a fundamental part of the validation phase in Continuous Integration processes. It’s telling that one of the main tool developed by Netflix to assess the reliability and performance of their system is a testing framework called the Simian Army.

The idea here is to develop a testing framework for Jolie microservices that encompass the development of a whole architecture, starting from its basic components. Prospecting projects fall under the categorisation below

Static Testing Dynamic Testing
Unit Testing Tests a single microservice. Ranges from highlighting possible coding errors to checking/applying formatting templates. Tests (likely) written by the same developer of the microservice. Focusses on the functional correctness of the microservice in isolation.
Integration Testing Tests the interactions between unit programs, looking for incompatibles among interfaces, deployment/bindings, interaction protocols. Tests combined individual units as a group to expose faults in the interaction and benchmark performance.
System-Integration Testing Tests the complete system with the components in production. Tests must consider the interaction exposed to the final users.

The Jolie interpreter already implements syntactic and semantic static checks at unit level. An interesting project on static analysis, towards integration/system-integration testing, is to consider the definition of session/global/behavioural types for Jolie programs and use those to enforce compliance among microservice architectures.

From the dynamic perspective, JoUnit is a unit testing framework for Jolie microservices, suited to be integrated in modern development environments where code versioning (git) and containers (Docker) are used to respectively manage code updates and deployment. Projects on dynamic testing can build on the JoUnit framework, extending it to cover integration and system-integration testing.

Pluggable monitors/loggers

Jolie has in-built logging and monitoring features but right now they are redirected to the standard output. On the contrary, developers and system administrators may need to redirect logged events to different repositories. The motivations are various: to collect aggregated data, to centralise monitoring, to preserve logs in a tractable format for bug investigation and troubleshooting. This means that Jolie should be able to redirect logged events in a modular way, e.g., in files (csv, xml, json, etc.), databases, streams towards centralised loggers, etc..

The Jolie interpreter already equips a modularised event-based architecture for logging, but lacks the feature to redirect logs to specific repositories.

A possible work on this topic can investigate the integration of Jolie tracing facilities with tracing platforms like opentracing.

A work in this direction would i) analyse how companies that adopted a microservices architecture [1,2,3] tackled the problem of logging, ii) plan an intervention on the Jolie interpreter to enable pluggable loggers, and iii) implement the planned solution.

The final result of the work would add a new command for the Jolie interpreter to plug different logging repositories (logging services) that implement the same logging interface, e.g., issuable with the command jolie myService.ol --monitor monitorAddress where monitorAddress can be any location supported by Jolie. Then it suffices that the service at location monitorAddress implements the standard Jolie monitoring/logging interface to be able to receive logging events and proceed to process them.

Currently, we have a beta Jolie version that produces JSON traces and Jtracer, a Jolie program that parses JSON-formatted Jolie trances and allows the user to visualise multiple traces in the same view.

Jolie Code Formatter

Along with comments, standard, consistent code formatting is one of the main factors in program comprehension. However, following code-formatting practices while programming can greatly hinder productivity, as it shifts the focus of the programmer from reasoning on the logic of its program to taking care of strictly following formatting rules. In practice, manually reformatting code is just not an option. This is the reason why many modern programming environments rely on code formatters, i.e., a software component that automatically applies code formatting rules on code sources.

Currently we are developing the Jolie formatter as a component of the Jolie interpreter. Projects on this topic range from extending the formatter to handle all the constructs of the language to developing more advanced features like supporting customised formatting templates and the enforcement of good code practices.

Automatic Microservice Architecture Deployment

Microservices and containers (e.g., Docker) are staple elements of any modern distributed architecture. Their frequent combination comes from the fact that they both deal with two desired properties of distributed systems: development/execution independence and ease of scaling. However, this flexibility comes at the price of additional complexity at deployment time: given an architecture of microservices, these must be included into their related containers and those containers must be run and bound so that the contained microservices can communicate with each other. Essentially, this corresponds to reconstructing the desired topology of the architecture.

While this task is frequently handled manually, it is a time-consuming and error-prone activity where the administrator of the architecture must go back and forth between launching some containers, binding their addresses, opening their ports, etc. On the contrary, all these tasks can be automatised.

JoArch is a prototypical framework that supports the definition of an architecture as a set of microservices and their respective, logical connections. Then, given one such definition, JoArch deploys each containerised microservice in its designated execution node, binding the containers as specified in the architecture definition.

New projects can investigate how to enrich JoArch so that, given an architecture, users can easily include staple components of microservice architectures such as loggers, load balancers, etc. without including such dependencies directly in the code of their microservices.

Jolie Package Manager

Like any modern programming language Jolie needs a package management system like Gems for Ruby, Pip for Python or NPM for Node.js.

Jolie already has an experimental implementation of a package manager, called JPM composed of a server that acts as repository of packages and a client to search, install, list, and update packages.

Still, the project needs to evolve to become usable and easy to integrate after a standard Jolie installation.

Working on this project would entail i) analysing the basic features of other package managers and package management environments (provision, versioning, dependency resolution, etc.), ii) make a plan of intervention to add some desirable feature to JPM and iii) implement the planned features in the JPM project.

Sodep+ for better logging and flow tracking

The more a network of services grows, the more difficult it becomes to track the flow of interactions and, above all, to understand what generated bad behaviours (crashes, resource overuse, etc.).

Having unique identifiers for each transaction (each communication, i.e., each one-way or request-response) in the network would immensely ease tracing such behaviours.

Work in this direction would be divided into two parts: the first is an analysis of other solutions already adopted to implement uncoordinated, fast, and lightweight (in terms of computation) generators for hundreds or thousands of globally unique IDs per second. For instance, a similar problem has been faced (and solved with the Snowflake approach) by Twitter when it had to scale their tweets storage architecture from big database instances to uncoordinated and distributed databases.

The second part would devise a solution based on the analysis in the first part of the work. Finally the solution would be implemented as a new version of SODEP, called SODEP+ that associates to each operation a unique operation identifier (OID).


Jolie provides several abstractions to handle communication and concurrency. It would be interesting to explore how these primitives can give a better control over asynchronous calls, concurrency, and architectural composition (e.g., web workers as embedded services) in the development of client-side applications.

Possible thesis/research directions:

  • a theoretical work on comparing an event-based model of JS with that of Jolie. The final goal is to give a sound and complete encoding from the theoretical model of the Jolie language [7] to an event-based calculus resembling that of JS;
  • building a compiler from Jolie to server-side (node.js, io.js) and/or client-side JS;
  • building a Jolie interpreter in Javascript (possibly reusing the existing code-base of the Jolie interpreter, à la Scala.js).

Liquid APIs

Following the approach presented in Towards a Composition-Based APIaaS Layer, analysing how Jolie interfaces relate to API definition languages like Swagger, RAML, blueprint, etc.

This can both follow a more theoretically-oriented path, on the expressiveness of Jolie interfaces with respect to other solutions, but also applied work on e.g., a tool to translate API definitions into Jolie interfaces and vice versa. This would be a cornerstone for other tools spanning e.g., from SDK generators to easy-to-read API specifications.

An example of integration between Jolie interfaces and REST ones, is Jolie2Rest within the Jester project (a Jolie rEST routER). Jolie2Rest automatise the creation of i) proper configuration files to publish existing Jolie microservices as REST APIs and ii) a Swagger interface documenting all the API published in the router.

Microservices and Reactive Programming

Reactive Programming is a programming paradigm focussed on data-flows and propagation of changes.

An interesting topic is to investigate how reactive programming, and in particular functional reactive programming, relate to Service-Oriented Programming and Microservices. Look here for a semi-serious (yet remarkable) introduction to functional reactive programming.

Jolie microservices, containers, and big data

Data are growing exponentially. Moving them around results in a huge loss of efficiency (in bandwidth and time).

Paraphrasing Francis Bacon,

if the data will not come to the computation, the computation will go to the data

Instead of moving data, we can use containers (e.g., Docker) to deploy a sandboxed Jolie-enabled environment where the data reside. Then a set of Jolie microservices can read the data, do the necessary computation, and return the result. It is also easy to make different instances of the same container work together to coordinate the computation over different yet dependent sets of data.

Services in Jolie are highly mobile. It is very easy to change how services are “glued” together by changing the medium they communicate on and/or the format of their communication.

A project in this direction would:

  • explore how containers and microservices interact with each other. E.g., we want to launch a task that returns some aggregate data. To do that, we write an orchestrator that “knows” i) the location of the data repositories and ii) the algorithms needed to manipulate the data and produce the result. When launched, the orchestrator deploys in each location a container with the services that handle the data and waits for them to finish their computation, receive the (partial) results and elaborate the (global) solution;

  • containers also allow services to migrate and replicate from a computational platform to another. On this direction, we can investigate how Jolie services can be stopped and resumed and how this can fit into dynamic plans for load-balancing, DMZs, etc.

The Jocker (Jolie Docker orchestrator) project is a first step towards the integration of Jolie microservices with containers. Jocker maps the Docker APIs within Jolie, so that Jolie microservices can control Docker to deploy, move, scale, and, more in general, orchestrate a fleet of containerised microservices.

Choreographies, container, and big data

Choreographies give a general overlook on the interaction in a distributed system. A project in this direction can explore the concept of choreographic deployment. Some of the questions to answer are:

  • Can choreographies ease the specification of container deployment?
  • Can choreographies specify how the services in a container interact with each other (within the same container and with services of other containers)?
  • What guarantees can we give on top of choreographic deployment specifications? E.g., static check on the typing of the interaction, inferring properties for checking correctness at runtime through monitoring.

AWS Lambda, Jolie, and Choreographies

One of the latest and most interesting services of Amazon Web Services is AWS Lambda. In a few words, AWS Lambda introduces the serverless architecture. In practice, with AWS Lambda the administrator deploys an application as a set of loosely coupled functionalities, each in its own container, without setting up a platform — a server — that is always on to run it.

AWS Lambda has tree main benefits with respect to traditional server-based configurations: i) pay-per-use pricing, because Amazon charges only when Lambda functions are run and ii) containers of Lambdas automatically scale when called concurrently and thus there is no need to plan scaling/managing policies.

AWS Lambda promises a new, agile, and cost-effective way of building application, yet it requires tools and techniques to harness the complexity of developing highly-distributed applications. Serverless is an example of development framework that provides structure and enforces best practices for the development of AWS Lambda applications.

An interesting research direction would be to investigate how Jolie and/or Choreographies can be used to give structure and avoid errors when programming AWS Lambdas.

Hybrid Microservice-Serverless Architecture

Explore which problems and structural/interaction patterns better fit within a microservice architecture and, (contrarily?) which better fit within a Serverless architecture. A brief example of this review could be: if I need to model the state of a session of a user, I need microservices because of the continuous access/synchronisation over many programs involved in the same session; contrarily, if I need to filter email messages, I can separately analyse protocol headers, text, links, and possible included files, I merge all the results processed in parallel to feed an anti-spam filter, hence, serverless seems more fitting for bursting, cascading, filtering processes.

Next, the work on this subject can build on the previous, empirical review to model a tool (language/framework) where programmers specify the interactions in the architecture they have in mind, then the tool analyses the patterns extracted from the specification and synthesises the programs following the architectural style that best fits the specification. Besides the best-fitting approach, the tool has two main advantages. First, it automatises reasoning and decision-making on architectural patterns, which would otherwise require developers to have a deep knowledge and experience on both styles of architectures. Second, it lowers economic barriers to enter the microservice/serverless market, helping developers in implementing the desired system, synthesising the programs (or at least their skeletal structure) following the selected style and related best practices.

Finally, on the contributions above, the tool can be evolved to automatically cluster the programs in the specification of the developers into sub-architectures, following the best-fitting analysis presented above. In this way, the final system synthesised by the tool is an optimised, hybrid architecture where serverless programs and microservices interact.

A step forward: moving Jolie processes between nodes

Starting processes in different nodes of a network is a desirable feature for resource management (wrt the previous paragraphs, to save bandwidth, load-balancing, etc.). In literature [4], the ability to launch new processes (computations) is called weak mobility. In languages/frameworks that support to weak mobility, a process can move (send) some executable code to a location. At reception, the code is executed by either the receiving process, which dynamically integrates it, or by a new thread/process, created on received code. Strong mobility builds on weak mobility by allowing processes to migrate in the network: the code moves along the state of the running processes, which, at reception, can resume their computation.

Some work has been already done on Jolie to support weak mobility [5,6] but supporting stop, move, and resume operations on running processes is an almost unexplored thread of research.

This topic is very open and spans from i) enhancing the Jolie interpreter with the primitives need to support strong mobility, to ii) implementing frameworks that support strong mobility in Jolie, to iii) studying the theoretical implications of supporting strong mobility in the calculus behind the Jolie language [7].

A (further) step forward: strong mobility in Choreographies

This topic builds on the previous one. How can we support strong mobility in choreographies? What properties can we guarantee on processes that move in a choreography? This is a bleeding-edge research topic and requires a good grasping on the theoretical model behind choreographies [8].