Formal Methods in System Design

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 105–122 | Cite as

Accommodating interference in the formal design of concurrent object-based programs

  • C. B. Jones
Article

Abstract

This paper is about formal development methods for concurrent programs. Interference is the bane of the quest for compositional methods for concurrency. Concepts from object-oriented languages are argued to be a promising way of taming interference. Two approaches to development are described which are applicable to differing degrees of interference.

Keywords

formal development concurrency object-based languages rely/guarantee-conditions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. America, “Issues in the design of a parallel object-oriented language,” Formal Aspects of Computing, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. America, “Formal techniques for parallel object-oriented languages,” in (Baeten and Groote, 1991), pp. 1–17, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. America and J. Rutten, “A parallel object-oriented language: Design and semantic foundations,” PhD thesis, Free University of Amsterdam, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R.J.R. Back, “Refinement calculus, part II: Parallel and reactive systems,” in (de Bakker et al., 1990), pp. 67–93, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.A. Bergstra and L.M.G. Feijs (Eds.), “Algebraic methods II: Theory tools and applications,” Vol. 490 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.C.M. Baeten and J.F. Groote (Eds.), “CONCUR'91—Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on concurrency theory,” Vol. 527 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. Cardelli, J. Donahue, L. Glassman, M. Jordan, B. Kalsow, and G. Nelson, “Modula-3 report,” Technical Report 31, DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto, California, April 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K.M. Chandy and J. Misra, Parallel Program Design: A Foundation, Addison-Wesley, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Collette, “Composition of assumption-commitment specifications in a UNITY style,” Science of Computer Programming, Vol. 23, pp. 107–126, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Collette, “Design of compositional proof systems based on assumption-commitment specifications—Application to UNITY,” PhD thesis, Louvain-la-Neuve, June 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F.S. de Boer, “Reasoning about dynamically evolving process structure,” PhD thesis, Free University of Amsterdam, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.W. de Bakker, W.-P. de Roever, and G. Rozenberg (Eds.), “Stepwise refinement of distributed systems,” Vol. 430 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C.C. de Figueiredo, “A proof system for a sequential object-based language,” PhD thesis, University of Manchester, August 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.V. Guttag and J.J. Horning, “Larch: Languages and tools for formal specification,” Texts and Monographs in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1993, ISBN 0-387-94006-5/ISBN 3-540-94006-5.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M.-C. Gaudel and J.-P. Jouannaud (Eds.), “TAPSOFT'93: Theory and practice of software development,” Vol. 668 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C.A.R. Hoare, I.J. Hayes, He Jifeng, C.C. Morgan, A.W. Roscoe, J.W. Sanders, I.H. Sørensen, J.M. Spivey, and B.A. Sufrin, “The laws of programming,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 672–687, 1987, see Corrigenda in Communications of the ACM, Vol. 30, No. 9, p. 770.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C.A.R. Hoare, “Recursive data structures,” International Journal of Computer & Information Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 105–132, 1975.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Hogg, “Islands: Aliasing protection in object-oriented languages,” in (Paepcke, 1991), 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C.B. Jones, “Development methods for computer programs including a notion of interference,” PhD thesis, Oxford University, June 1981, Printed as: Programming Research Group, Technical Monograph 25.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C.B. Jones, “Specification and design of (parallel) programs,” in Proceedings of IFIP'83, North-Holland, 1983, pp. 321–332.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C.B. Jones, Systematic Software Development using VDM, Prentice-Hall International, second edition, 1990, ISBN 0-13-880733-7.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C.B. Jones, “Constraining interference in an object-based design method,” in (Gaudel and Jouannand, 1993), pp. 136–150, 1993.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    C.B. Jones, “Reasoning about interference in an object-based design method,” in (Woodcock and Larsen, 1993), pp. 1–18, 1993.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    W. Janssen, M. Poel, and J. Zwiers, “Action systems and action refinement in the development of parallel systems,” in (Baeten and Groote, 1991), pp. 298–316, 1991.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    B.B. Kristensen, O.L. Madsen, B. Møller-Pedersen, and K. Nygaard, “Object oriented programming in the Beta programming language,” Technical Report, University of Oslo, September 1991.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    K.R.M. Leino, “Toward reliable modular programs,” PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology, 1995.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. Lengauer, “A methodology for programming with concurrency,” PhD thesis, Computer Systems Research Group, University of Toronto, 1982.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    R.J. Lipton, “Reduction: A method of proving properties of parallel programs,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 12, pp. 717–721, 1975.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    B. Meyer, Object-Oriented Software Construction, Prentice-Hall, 1988.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    R. Milner, J. Parrow, and D. Walker, “A calculus of mobile processes,” Information and Computation, Vol. 100, pp. 1–77, 1992.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    E.-R. Olderog and K.R. Apt, “Using transformations to verify parallel programs,” in (Bergstra and Feijs, 1991), pp. 55–82, 1991.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A. Paepcke (Ed.), OOPSLA'91, ACM, ACM Press, November 1991.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    A.W. Roscoe and C.A.R. Hoare, “Laws of occam programming,” Monograph PRG-53, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Programming Research Group, February 1986.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    K. Stølen, “Development of parallel programs on shared data-structures,” PhD thesis, Manchester University, 1990, available as UMCS-91-1-1.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    K. Stølen, “A method for the development of totally correct shared-state parallel programs,” in (Baeten and Groote, 1991), pp. 510–525, 1991.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    D. Walker, “Process calculus and parallel object-oriented programming languages,” in International Summer Institute on Parallel Computer Architectures, Languages, and Algorithms, Prague, 1993.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    D. Walker, “Confluence of processes and systems of objects,” July 1995, CAAP'95.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    J.C.P. Woodcock and P.G. Larsen (Eds.), “FME'93: Industrial-strength formal methods,” Vol. 670 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Q. Xu and J. He, “A theory of state-based parallel programming by refinement: Part I,” in J. Morris (Ed.), Proceedings of The Fourth BCS-FACS Refinement Workshop, Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Q. Xu, “A theory of State-based parallel programming,” PhD thesis, Oxford University, 1992.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    A. Yonezawa (Ed.), ABCL: An Object-Oriented Concurrent System, MIT Press, 1990, ISBN 0-262-24029-7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. B. Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchesterU.K.

Personalised recommendations