Distributed Computing

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 39–63 | Cite as

Specifying modules to satisfy interfaces: A state transition system approach

  • Simon S. Lam
  • A. Udaya Shankar
Article
Received:
Accepted:

Summary

We defineinterface, module and the meaning ofM offers I, whereM denotes a module andI an interface. For a moduleM and disjoint interfacesU andL, the meaning ofM using L offers U is also defined. For a linear hierarchy of modules and interfaces,M1, I1, M2, I2, ...,Mn, In, we present the following composition theorem: IfM1 offersI1 and, fori=2, ...,n, Mi usingIi−1 offersIi, then the hierarchy of modules offersIn.

Our theory is applied to solve a problem posed by Leslie Lamport at the 1987 Lake Arrowhead Workshop. We first present a formal specification of a serializable database interface. We then provide specifications of two modules, one based upon two-phase locking and the other multi-version timestamps; the two-phase locking module uses an interface offered by a physical database. We prove that each module offers the serializable interface.

Key words

Interface Module Specification Verification Composition 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abadi M, Lamport L: The existence of refinement mappings. Research Report 29, Digital Systems Research Center, Palo Alto, CA 94301, August 1988Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abadi M, Lamport L: Composing specifications. In: de Bakker, JW, de Roever W-P, Rozenberg G (eds) Stepwise refinement of distributed systems. LNCS vol 430. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York 1990Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernstein PA, Hadzilacos V, Goodman N: Concurrency control and recovery in database systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts 1987Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chandy KM, Misra J: A foundation of parallel program design. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts 1988Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoare CAR: Communicating sequential processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1985Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jonsson B: On decomposing and refining specifications of distributed systems. In: de Bakker JW, de Roever W-P, Rozenberg G (eds) Stepwise refinement of distributed systems. LNCS vol 430. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York 1990Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lam SS, Shankar AU: Protocol verification via projections. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. Vol. SE-10, 10: 325–342 (1984)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lam SS, Shankar AU: Specifying an implementation to satisfy interface specifications: a state transition approach. 26th Lake Arrowhead Workshop on how will we specify concurrent systems in the year 2000. September 1987Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lam SS, Shankar AU: A relational notation for state transition systems. IEEE Trans. Software Eng 16 (7):755–775 (1990) (an abbreviated version entitled Refinement and Projection of Relational Specifications. In: de Bakker W, de Roever W-P, Rozenberg G (eds) Stepwise refinement of distributed systems) LNCS vol 430. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York 1990Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lam SS, Shankar AU: A theory of interfaces and modules, part I and part II. Technical reports, Department of Computer Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, 1992. An abbreviated version of part I entitledUnderstanding Interfaces. In: Proceedings IFIP Fourth International Conference on Formal Description Techniques (FORTE), Sydney, Australia, November 1991Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lamport L: An assertional correctness proof of a distributed algorithm. Sci Comput Program 2: 175–206 (1982)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lamport L: What it means for a concurrent program to satisfy a specification: why no one has specified priority. Proceedings 12th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. New Orleans 1985Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lamport L: A serializable database interface. 26th Lake Arrow-head Workshop on how will we specify concurrent systems in the year 2000. September 1987Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lamport L: A simple approach to specifying concurrent systems. Comm ACM 32 (1):32–45 (1989)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lynch N, Tuttle M: Hierarchical correctness proofs for distributed algorithms. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, Vancouver, B.C., August 1987Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lynch N, Merritt M, Weihl W, Fekete A: A theory of atomic transactions. Technical Report MIT/LCS/TM-362, Laboratory for Computer Science, M.I.T, June 1988Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Manna Z, Pnueli A: Adequate proof principles for invariance and liveness properties of concurrent programs. Sci Comput Program 4:257–289 (1984)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Misra J, Chandy KM: Proofs of networks of processes. IEEE Trans Software Eng. Vol. SE-7, 4: 417–426 (1981)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murphy SL, Shankar AU: Service specification and protocol construction for the transport layer, CS-TR-2033, UMIACS-TR-88-38, Computer Science Department University of Maryland, May 1988; an abbreviated version appears in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM '88 Symposium, August 1988Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Owicki S, Gries D: An axiomatic proof technique for parallel programs I. Acta Inf 6: 319–340 (1976)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Owicki S, Lamport L: Proving liveness properties of concurrent systems. ACM TOPLAS 4(3):455–495 (1982)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pnueli A: In transition from global to modular temporal reasoning about programs. NATO ASI Series. In: Logics and models of concurrent systems. Apt KR (ed) vol F13, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York 1984. pp 123–144Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shankar AU, Lam SS: An HDLC protocol specification and its verification using image protocols. ACM Trans Comput Syst. Vol. 1, 4: 331–368 (1983)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shankar AU, Lam SS: A stepwise refinement heuristic for protocol construction. To appear in ACM TOPLAS; an abbreviated version entitled Construction of Network Protocols by Stepwise Refinement. In: de Bakker JW, de Roever W, Rozenberg G (eds): Stepwise refinement of distributed systems. LNCS vol 430. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York 1990Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon S. Lam
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. Udaya Shankar
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer SciencesThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Institute for Advanced Computer StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations