Modelling session types using contracts

Bernardi, Giovanni; Hennessy, Matthew

doi:10.1017/s0960129514000243

Cited by 25 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Notice that a a ⊕ b, when the compliance is defined according to the standard LTS [BdL15,BH15]. In general, we expect the compliance of behaviours with rollback to be conservative with respect to the compliance without rollback.…”

Section: Servermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The calculus is obtained from session behaviours, as treated in [BdL15,BH15], by adding checkpoints. As explained in the Introduction, we allow checkpoints to occur only before internal or external choices, not before branches unless the sums consist of just one branch.…”

Section: Calculusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Notice that the restrictions in the previous definition (namely of external and internal choices to be made of summands with pairwise distinct prefixes, that are all input actions in external choices, and all output actions in internal choices) are present also in [BdL15,BH15], where they are justified. They are mainly due to the aim of using results on session behaviours in contexts where processes interactions are structured by means of session types [HVK98].…”

Section: Definition 21 (Session Behaviours With Checkpoints)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They are mainly due to the aim of using results on session behaviours in contexts where processes interactions are structured by means of session types [HVK98]. We remark that in our theory (as well in the theory of session behaviours in general [BdL15,BH15]), only closed terms are considered behaviours, since there is no real practical use for open terms. When I is a singleton set, we just write a.σ and a.σ for a.σ and a.σ ; also we omit the trailing 1 whenever possible.…”

Section: Definition 21 (Session Behaviours With Checkpoints)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Correspondence and offprint requests to: F. Barbanera More precisely, we consider the formalism of session behaviours as introduced in [BdL15] and [BH15] (where they were referred to as session contracts). This is a formalism interpreting the session types, introduced by Honda et al in [HVK98], into a subset of CCS without τ .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Reversible client/server interactions

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the setting of session behaviours, we study an extension of the concept of compliance when a disciplined form of backtracking and of output skipping is present. After adding checkpoints to the syntax of session behaviours, we formalise the operational semantics via an LTS, and define natural notions of checkpoint compliance and sub-behaviour, which we prove to be both decidable. Then we extend the operational semantics with skips and we show the decidability of the obtained compliance.

show abstract

Section: Servermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Calculusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Definition 21 (Session Behaviours With Checkpoints)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Definition 21 (Session Behaviours With Checkpoints)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Reversible client/server interactions

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Relating Session Types and Behavioural Contracts: The Asynchronous Case

Bravetti

Zavattaro

2019

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We discuss the relationship between session types and behavioural contracts under the assumption that processes communicate asynchronously. We show the existence of a fully abstract interpretation of session types into a fragment of contracts, that maps session subtyping into binary compliance-preserving contract refinement. In this way, the recent undecidability result for asynchronous session subtyping can be used to obtain an original undecidability result for asynchronous contract refinement.

show abstract

Fair Refinement for Asynchronous Session Types

Bravetti

Lange

Zavattaro

2021

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Session types are widely used as abstractions of asynchronous message passing systems. Refinement for such abstractions is crucial as it allows improvements of a given component without compromising its compatibility with the rest of the system. In the context of session types, the most general notion of refinement is the asynchronous session subtyping, which allows to anticipate message emissions but only under certain conditions. In particular, asynchronous session subtyping rules out candidates subtypes that occur naturally in communication protocols where, e.g., two parties simultaneously send each other a finite but unspecified amount of messages before removing them from their respective buffers. To address this shortcoming, we study fair compliance over asynchronous session types and fair refinement as the relation that preserves it. This allows us to propose a novel variant of session subtyping that leverages the notion of controllability from service contract theory and that is a sound characterisation of fair refinement. In addition, we show that both fair refinement and our novel subtyping are undecidable. We also present a sound algorithm, and its implementation, which deals with examples that feature potentially unbounded buffering.

show abstract

Modelling session types using contracts

Cited by 25 publications

References 21 publications

Reversible client/server interactions

Reversible client/server interactions

Relating Session Types and Behavioural Contracts: The Asynchronous Case

Fair Refinement for Asynchronous Session Types

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About