Formal Verification for Components and Connectors

Baier, Christel; Blechmann, Tobias; Klein, Joachim; Klüppelholz, Sascha

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04167-9_5

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We model components, contexts and properties as Constraint Automata (CAs) [6], dened below. Throughout the paper we assume a nite set Data of data values which can be communicated and a nite set of states for the CAs.…”

Section: Constraint Automatamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Throughout the paper we assume a nite set Data of data values which can be communicated and a nite set of states for the CAs. As in [6], the niteness assumption is needed for the eectiveness of our constructions.…”

Section: Constraint Automatamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We consider here components, contexts and properties represented as Constraint Automata [6,5], which have been used in the literature, e.g., to give a formal semantics to REO connectors [3] and Rebeca actors [20]. We consider both asynchronous and synchronous composition for components and contexts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Most General Property-Preserving Updates

Bresolin

Lanese

2017

Language and Automata Theory and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Systems need to be updated to last for a long time in a dynamic environment, and to cope with changing requirements. It is important for updates to preserve the desirable properties of the system under update, while possibly enforcing new ones. Here we consider a simple yet general update mechanism, which replaces a component of the system with a new one. The context, i.e., the rest of the system, remains unchanged. We dene contexts and components as Constraint Automata interacting via either asynchronous or synchronous communication, and we express properties using Constraint Automata too. Then we build most general updates which preserve specic properties, considering both a single property and all the properties satised by the original system, in a given context or in all possible contexts.

show abstract

Section: Constraint Automatamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Constraint Automatamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Most General Property-Preserving Updates

Bresolin

Lanese

2017

Language and Automata Theory and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Green producer code (lines [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] consists of an infinite loop where in each iteration, it performs some computation and assigns the value it wishes to produce to local variable greenText (lines [14][15], and waits for its turn by attempting to acquire greenSsemaphore (line 17). Next, it waits to gain exclusive access to the shared buffer, and while it has this exclusive access, it assigns greenText into buffer (lines [18][19][20].…”

Section: Fig 1 Alternating Producers and Consumermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several model checking tools are available for analyzing Reo. The Vereofy model checker, integrated in ECT, is based on constraint automata [5,[21][22][23][24]28,37,55,56]. Properties of Reo connectors can be specified for verification by Vereofy in a language based on Linear Temporal Logic (LTL), or on a variant of Computation Tree Logic (CTL), called Alternating-time Stream Logic (ASL).…”

Section: Overview Of Reomentioning

confidence: 99%

Coordinating Multicore Computing

Arbab

Jongmans

2015

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Traditional models of concurrency resort to peculiarly indirect means to express interaction and study its properties. Formalisms such as process algebras/calculi, concurrent objects, actors, shared memory, message passing, etc., all are primarily action-based models that provide constructs for the direct specification of things that interact, rather than a direct specification of interaction (protocols). Consequently, interaction in these formalisms becomes a derived or secondary concept whose properties can be studied only indirectly, as the sideeffects of the (intended or coincidental) couplings or clashes of the actions whose compositions comprise a model.Treating interaction as an explicit first-class concept, complete with its own composition operators, allows to specify more complex interaction protocols by combining simpler, and eventually primitive, protocols. Reo [4,7,8,15] serves as a premier example of such an interaction-based model of concurrency. In this paper, we describe Reo and its compiler. We show how exogenous coordination in Reo reflects an interaction-centric model of concurrency where an interaction (protocol) consists of nothing but a relational constraint on communication actions. In this setting, interaction protocols become explicit, concrete, tangible (software) constructs that can be specified, verified, composed, and reused, independently of the actors that they may engage in disparate applications.

show abstract