A Run-Time Environment for Concurrent Objects With Asynchronous Method Calls

Johnsen, Einar Broch; Owe, Olaf; Axelsen, Eyvind W.

doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2004.06.012

Cited by 21 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, RL is reflective [10], which allows execution strategies for Maude programs to be written in RL. A strategy based on a pseudo-random number generator is proposed in [22]. Using this strategy, it is easy to test a specification in a series of different runs by providing different seeds to the random number generator.…”

Section: Testing Specifications In the Creol Interpretermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, development of the language constructs and testing them is done incrementally. In fact, Creol's operational semantics has been used as a language interpreter to test the behavior of Creol programs [22]. The interpreter consists of 700 lines of code, including auxiliary functions and equational specifications, and it has 29 rewrite rules.…”

Section: Testing Specifications In the Creol Interpretermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Asynchronous Communication Model for Distributed Concurrent Objects

2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Testing Specifications In the Creol Interpretermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Testing Specifications In the Creol Interpretermentioning

confidence: 99%

An Asynchronous Communication Model for Distributed Concurrent Objects

2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A semantics of an ML-like language with threads was discussed in detail in [30], a modular rewriting logic semantics of CML has been given in [4], and a definition of the Scheme language has been given in [10]. Other language case studies, all specified in Maude, include: BC [2], CCS [43,44,2], CIAO [40], Creol [25], ELOTOS [42], MSR [3,38], PLAN [39,40], and the pi-calculus [41]. In fact, the semantics of large fragments of conventional languages are by now routinely developed by UIUC graduate students as course projects [36] in a few weeks, including, besides the languages already mentioned: Beta, Haskell, Lisp, LLVM, Pict, Python, Ruby, and Smalltalk.…”

Section: Languages Defined In Rewriting Logicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computational Logical Frameworks and Generic Program Analysis Technologies

Meseguer

Roşu

2008

Verified Software: Theories, Tools, Experiments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The technologies developed to solve the verifying compiler grand challenge should be generic, that is, not tied to a particular language but widely applicable to many languages. Such technologies should also be semantics-based, that is, based on a rigorous formal semantics of the languages.For this, a computational logical framework with efficient executability and a spectrum of meta-tools can serve as a basis on which to: (1) define the formal semantics of any programming language; and (2) develop generic program analysis techniques and tools that can be instantiated to generate powerful analysis tools for each language of interest.Not all logical frameworks can serve such purposes well. We first list some specific requirements that we think are important to properly address the grand challenge. Then we present our experience with rewriting logic as supported by the Maude system and its formal tool environment. Finally, we discuss some future directions of research. Logical Framework RequirementsBased on experience, current trends, and the basic requirements of the grand challenge problem, we believe that any logical framework serving as a computational infrastructure for the various technologies for solving the grand challenge should have at least the following features:1. good data representation capabilities, 2. support for concurrency and nondeterminism, 3. simplicity of the formalism, 4. efficient implementability, and efficient meta-tools, 5. support for reflection, 6. support for inductive reasoning, preferably with initial model semantics, 7. support for generation of proof objects, acting as correctness certificates.While proponents of a framework may claim that it has all these features, in some cases further analysis can show that it either lacks some of them, or can only "simulate" certain features in a quite artificial way. A good example is the

show abstract

“…However, RL is reflective [31], which allows execution strategies for Maude programs to be written in RL. A strategy based on a pseudo-random number generator is proposed in [30]. Using this strategy, it is easy to test a specification in a series of different runs by providing different seeds to the random number generator.…”

Section: ) Testing Specifications In the Creolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Development and testing of language constructs can be done incrementally. The operational semantics described in this paper has been used as a language interpreter to analyze Creol models [30]. The interpreter consists of 700 lines of code, including auxiliary functions and equational specifications, and it has 25 rewrite rules.…”

Section: ) Testing Specifications In the Creolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inheritance in the Presence of Asynchronous Method Calls

Johnsen

Owe

Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This paper considers a formal object-oriented model for distributed computing. Object orientation appears as a leading framework for concurrent and distributed systems. However, the synchronization of the RPC communication model is unsatisfactory in many distributed systems. Asynchronous message passing gives better control and efficiency in this setting, but lacks the structure and discipline of traditional objectoriented methods. The integration of the message concept in the object-oriented paradigm is unsettled, especially with respect to inheritance and redefinition.We propose an approach combining asynchronous method calls and conditional processor release points, which reduces the cost of waiting for replies in the distributed environment while avoiding low-level synchronization constructs such as explicit signaling. Even the lack of replies to method calls in unstable environments need not lead to deadlock in the invoking objects. This property seems attractive in asynchronous, open, or unreliable environments. Furthermore, the approach allows active and passive behavior (client and server) to be combined in concurrent objects in a very natural way.In this paper, we consider the integration of these constructs with a mechanism for multiple inheritance within a small object-oriented language. The language constructs are formally described by an operational semantics defined in rewriting logic.

show abstract

A Run-Time Environment for Concurrent Objects With Asynchronous Method Calls

Cited by 21 publications

References 20 publications

An Asynchronous Communication Model for Distributed Concurrent Objects

An Asynchronous Communication Model for Distributed Concurrent Objects

Computational Logical Frameworks and Generic Program Analysis Technologies

Inheritance in the Presence of Asynchronous Method Calls

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About