Multiparty session types as coherence proofs

Carbone, Marco; Montesi, Fabrizio; Schürmann, Carsten; Yoshida, Nobuko

doi:10.1007/s00236-016-0285-y

Cited by 51 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another technique for deadlock-freedom in MPST and similar models is to restrict connections among processes participating in different protocols to form a tree [4,6,8]. PC is more expressive, since connections can form an arbitrary graph.…”

Section: Discussion Future and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All recent theories based on session types (e.g., [5,7,8,9,18]) assume that all processes in a session (a protocol execution) have a private full-duplex channel to communicate with each other in that session. This amounts to requiring that the graph of connections among processes in a protocol is always complete.…”

Section: Discussion Future and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, errors can still occur due to the composition of multiple protocol executions, which is left unchecked. Different approaches for avoiding deadlocks in protocol compositions have been proposed [8,9], but these limit how protocols can be composed -e.g., protocols can be instantiated only in a certain order, or connections among processes should form a tree structure -and do not offer a means to easily and correctly translate the programmer's intentions on ordering: the language for composing protocols is not declarative.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Procedural Choreographic Programming

Cruz-Filipe

Montesi

2017

Formal Techniques for Distributed Objects, Components, and Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. A recent study of bugs in real-world concurrent and distributed systems found that, while implementations of individual protocols tend to be robust, the composition of multiple protocols and its interplay with internal computation is the culprit for most errors. Multiparty Session Types and Choreographic Programming are methodologies for developing correct-by-construction concurrent and distributed software, based on global descriptions of communication flows. However, protocol composition is either limited or left unchecked. Inspired by these two methodologies, in this work we present a new language model for the safe composition of protocols, called Procedural Choreographies (PC). Protocols in PC are procedures, parameterised on the processes that enact them. Procedures define communications declaratively using global descriptions, and programs are written by invoking and composing these procedures. An implementation in terms of a process model is then mechanically synthesised, guaranteeing correctness and deadlock-freedom. We study PC in the settings of synchronous and asynchronous communications, and illustrate its expressivity with some representative examples.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Future and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussion Future and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Procedural Choreographic Programming

Cruz-Filipe

Montesi

2017

Formal Techniques for Distributed Objects, Components, and Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In § 3 we outline the theoretical developments that will be needed to put the approach on a sound footing, including possible extensions and modifications to the notions of communicating automata [8] and multiparty compatibility [11,12,5,9,18] from the theory of session types. We also mention connections to established techniques such as model checking.…”

Section: Contributions Of Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiparty Compatibility for Concurrent Objects

Perera

Lange

2016

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objects and actors are communicating state machines, offering and consuming different services at different points in their lifecycle. Two complementary challenges arise when programming such systems. When objects interact, their state machines must be "compatible", so that services are requested only when they are available. Dually, when objects refine other objects, their state machines must be "compliant", so that services are honoured whenever they are promised.In this paper we show how the idea of multiparty compatibility from the session types literature can be applied to both of these problems. We present an untyped language in which concurrent objects are checked automatically for compatibility and compliance. For simple objects, checking can be exhaustive and has the feel of a type system. More complex objects can be partially validated via test cases, leading to a methodology closer to continuous testing. Our proof-of-concept implementation is limited in some important respects, but demonstrates the potential value of the approach and the relationship to existing software development practices. Objects as communicating automataTwo significant state-related challenges arise when programming object-oriented systems. We describe how these both relate to the idea of an object as an automaton, and then present a tool which speaks to both challenges and aligns well with test-driven development practices.Compatible usage. To use an object safely, one must understand its inner automaton: its states, the services available in each state, and the state transitions that result from service requests. We call this the compatibility problem. In standard OO languages the automaton is hidden away behind a flat collection of methods comprising the object's interface. The compatibility problem is compounded by the fact that interacting with one object may indirectly cause a state change in another object.Compliant refinement. The second challenge is complementary. To safely specialise the behaviour of an object, one must take care to respect its automaton: each state of the overriding object must be contravariant with respect to services offered, and covariant with respect to services consumed. We call this the compliance problem. Compliance is the key to robust compositionality: compliant implementations can be safely substituted for abstractions, as embodied by the slogan "require no more, promise no less" [20], allowing the abstractions to serve as boundaries between components. Yet in traditional OO languages compliance is captured at the level of method signatures, not at the level of the object's underlying automaton.Test-oriented methodologies. The modern context for both of these problems is an increasingly incremental and test-driven development process. In test-driven development [2], programmers deliver features by first defining test cases which characterise them, and then writing enough code to make the tests pass.

show abstract

“…Previous works have presented formal models for capturing different aspects of choreographic programming, e.g., web services [2,11], multiparty sessions and asynchrony [3], runtime adaptation [23], modular development [20], protocol compliance [3,4], and computational expressivity [7]. More in general, looking also at other applications rather than just programming system implementations, choreographies have been investigated in the realms of type theory [14], automata theory [10,16], formal logics [5], and service contracts [1,24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choreographies in Practice

Cruz-Filipe

Montesi

2016

Formal Techniques for Distributed Objects, Components, and Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Choreographic Programming is a development methodology for concurrent software that guarantees correctness by construction. The key to this paradigm is to disallow mismatched I/O operations in programs, called choreographies, and then mechanically synthesise distributed implementations in terms of standard process models via a mechanism known as EndPoint Projection (EPP). Despite the promise of choreographic programming, there is still a lack of practical evaluations that illustrate the applicability of choreographies to concrete computational problems with standard concurrent solutions. In this work, we explore the potential of choreographies by using Procedural Choreographies (PC), a model that we recently proposed, to write distributed algorithms for sorting (Quicksort), solving linear equations (Gaussian elimination), and computing Fast Fourier Transform. We discuss the lessons learned from this experiment, giving possible directions for the usage and future improvements of choreography languages.

show abstract

Multiparty session types as coherence proofs

Cited by 51 publications

References 26 publications

Procedural Choreographic Programming

Procedural Choreographic Programming

Multiparty Compatibility for Concurrent Objects

Choreographies in Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About