Mutually Testing Processes

Bernardi, Giovanni; Hennessy, Matthew

doi:10.2168/lmcs-11(2:1)2015

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this paper we have shown the differences between the sub-contract preorders [CGP09,Pad10,Ber13] and the testing preorders [DH84,BH13]. Another study of sub-contract relations is [BMPR10].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compliance and Testing Preorders Differ

Bernardi

Hennessy

2014

Software Engineering and Formal Methods

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contracts play an essential role in the Service Oriented Computing, for which they need to be equiped with a sub-contract relation. We compare two possible formulations, one based on compliance and the other on the testing theory of De Nicola and Hennessy. We show that if the language of contracts is sufficiently expressive then the resulting subcontract relations are incomparable.However if we put natural restrictions on the contract language then the sub-contract relations coincide, at least when applied to servers. But when formulated for clients they remain incomparable, for many reasonable contract languages. Finally we give one example of a contract language for which the client-based sub-contract relations coincide.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compliance and Testing Preorders Differ

Bernardi

Hennessy

2014

Software Engineering and Formal Methods

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We use the symbol 1, rather than 0 frequently used in the literature, so as to reserve 0 for representing deadlock. Note that the use of 1 is standard for semantics which are sensitive to the difference between a process stopping because of deadlock and stopping because it has successfully fulfilled all its obligations and has no further pending actions to execute, e.g., Bernardi and Hennessy (2013).…”

Section: Embedding π-Calculus Processes As Formulae In Bv1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing weak simulations from linear implications for processes with private names

Horne

Tiu

2019

Math. Struct. Comp. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper clarifies that linear implication defines a branching-time preorder, preserved in all contexts, when used to compare embeddings of process in non-commutative logic. The logic considered is a first-order extension of the proof system BV featuring a de Morgan dual pair of nominal quantifiers, called BV1. An embedding of π-calculus processes as formulae in BV1 is defined, and the soundness of linear implication in BV1 with respect to a notion of weak simulation in the π -calculus is established. A novel contribution of this work is that we generalise the notion of a ‘left proof’ to a class of formulae sufficiently large to compare embeddings of processes, from which simulating execution steps are extracted. We illustrate the expressive power of BV1 by demonstrating that results extend to the internal π -calculus, where privacy of inputs is guaranteed. We also remark that linear implication is strictly finer than any interleaving preorder.

show abstract

“…The complete characterization of compliance testing remains an open problem. Recent work in this direction has been done by Bernardi and Hennessy [2013], where however compliance testing is characterized only for controllable processes (i.e. processes for which there exists a compliant test) and, differently from Zavattaro, 2007, 2008b], fairness assumption is not considered.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral Types in Programming Languages

Ancona

Bono

Bravetti

et al. 2016

FNT in Programming Languages

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceA recent trend in programming language research is to use behavioral type theory to ensure various correctness properties of largescale, communication-intensive systems. Behavioral types encompass concepts such as interfaces, communication protocols, contracts, and choreography. The successful application of behavioral types requires a solid understanding of several practical aspects, from their representation in a concrete programming language, to their integration with other programming constructs such as methods and functions, to design and monitoring methodologies that take behaviors into account. This survey provides an overview of the state of the art of these aspects, which we summarize as the pragmatics of behavioral types

show abstract

Mutually Testing Processes

Cited by 12 publications

References 14 publications

Compliance and Testing Preorders Differ

Compliance and Testing Preorders Differ

Constructing weak simulations from linear implications for processes with private names

Behavioral Types in Programming Languages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About