Making trace monitors feasible

Avgustinov, Pavel; Tibble, Julian; Moor, Oege de

doi:10.1145/1297027.1297070

Cited by 64 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is similar to the semantics of Tracematches [3,7,17]. Looking at our example trace, two matches will be reported because two prefixes of the trace e 1 e 2 e 3 , which comes from the only instance we consider ( a 1 , b 1 ), match (see Fig.…”

Section: Binding Modes and Connectednesssupporting

confidence: 69%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An overview of the MOP runtime verification framework

Meredith

Jin

Griffith

et al. 2011

Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer

199

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article gives an overview of the, monitoring oriented programming framework (MOP). In MOP, runtime monitoring is supported and encouraged as a fundamental principle for building reliable systems. Monitors are automatically synthesized from specified properties and are used in conjunction with the original system to check its dynamic behaviors. When a specification is violated or validated at runtime, user-defined actions will be triggered, which can be any code, such as information logging or runtime recovery. Two instances of MOP are presented: JavaMOP (for Java programs) and BusMOP (for monitoring PCI bus traffic). The architecture of MOP is discussed, and an explanation of parametric trace monitoring and its implementation is given. A comprehensive evaluation of JavaMOP attests to its efficiency, especially in comparison with similar systems. The implementation of BusMOP is discussed in detail. In general, BusMOP imposes no runtime overhead on the system it is monitoring.

show abstract

Section: Binding Modes and Connectednesssupporting

confidence: 69%

“…4.2 were both used to showcase the effectiveness of using enable sets to reduce extraneous monitor creations. Results from Tracematches [3,7,17] are also presented because it is the most efficient Java monitoring system of which we are aware, other than JavaMOP.…”

Section: Javamop Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

An overview of the MOP runtime verification framework

Meredith

Jin

Griffith

et al. 2011

Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer

199

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To deal with parameter bindings, tracematches [15] [16] and JavaMOP [17][18] [19] both use multi-level trees (implemented using hash maps) for indexing, but they differ in the structure of the trees. The tracematches system has a tree for each automaton state, and the leaves of each tree are variable bindings associated with that state.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Runtime Monitoring of Data-centric Temporal Properties for Web Services

Wei

et al. 2011

2011 IEEE International Conference on Web Services

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Runtime monitoring of Web service compositions has been widely acknowledged as a significant approach to understand and guarantee the quality of services. However, existing runtime monitoring solutions consider only the constraints on the sequence of messages exchanged between partner services and ignore the actual data contents inside the messages. As a result, it is difficult to monitor some dynamic properties such as how message data of interest is processed between different participants. To address this issue, we propose an efficient, non-intrusive online monitoring approach to dynamically analyze data-centric properties for serviceoriented applications involving multiple participants. By introducing Par-BCL -a Parametric Behavior Constraint Language for web services -to define monitoring parameters, various data-centric temporal behavior properties for Web services can be specified and monitored. This approach broadens the monitored patterns to include not only message exchange orders, but also the data contents bound to the parameters. To reduce runtime overhead, we statically analyze the monitored properties to generate parameter state machine from the event pattern automata to optimize monitoring. The experiments show that our solution is efficient and promising.

show abstract

“…Two separate sources inspired our work: the runtime verification community (Avgustinov et al 2007;Barnett et al 2004;Chen and Roşu 2007;Havelund and Roşu 2001;Kim et al 2004;Leavens et al 2000;Zee et al 2007) and work on the original future (Halstead 1984) construct of LISP and later Scheme.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Future contracts

Dimoulas

Pucella

Felleisen

2009

Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many recent research projects focus on language support for behavioral software contracts, that is, assertions that govern the boundaries between software building blocks such as procedures, classes, or modules. Contracts primarily help locate bugs in programs, but they also tend to affect the performance of the program, especially as they become complex.In this paper, we introduce future contracts and parallel contract checking: software contracts annotated with future are checked in parallel with the main program, exploiting the nowcommon multiple-core architecture. We present both a model and a prototype implementation of our language design. Our model comprises a higher-order imperative language and we use it to prove the correctness of our design. Our implementation is robust enough to measure the performance of reasonably large benchmarks, demonstrating that the use of future contracts can lead to significant performance improvements.

show abstract

Making trace monitors feasible

Cited by 64 publications

References 15 publications

An overview of the MOP runtime verification framework

An overview of the MOP runtime verification framework

Runtime Monitoring of Data-centric Temporal Properties for Web Services

Future contracts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About