Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On modelling recursive calls and callbacks with two variants of Unified Modelling Language state diagrams

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Formal Aspects of Computing

Abstract

An important use of the Unified Modelling Language (UML) is modelling synchronous object-oriented software systems. State diagrams are used to model interesting object behaviour, including method invocation. However, almost all previous work formalising state diagrams has assumed asynchronous communication. We show that UML’s “run to completion” semantics leads to anomalous behaviour in the synchronous case, and in particular that it is not possible to model recursive calls, in which an object receives a second synchronous message whilst still in the process of reacting to the first. We propose a solution using state diagrams in two complementary ways.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alur R, Etessami K, Yannakakis M (2001) Analysis of recursive state machines. In: Proceedings of computer aided verification, CAV’01. LNCS; vol 2102. Springer; Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 207–220

  2. The Argo UML Project. Website at http://argouml.tigris.org/

  3. Börger E, Cavarra A, Riccobene E (2002) A precise semantics of UML state machines: making semantic variation points and ambiguities explicit. In: Proceedings of semantic foundations of engineering design languages, SFEDL, Satellite workshop of ETAPS’02

  4. Benedikt M, Godefroid P, Reps TW (2001) Model checking of unrestricted hierarchical state machines. In: Proceedings of automata, languages and programming, ICALP’01. LNCS; vol 2076; Springer; Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 652–666

  5. Booch G, Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I (1998). The unified modeling language user guide. Addison Wesley Longman, Essex

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, Vlissides J (1995) Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison Wesley, Reading

  7. Grosu R, Liu YA, Smolka SA, Stoller SD, Yan J (2001) Automated software engineering using concurrent class machines. In: Proceeding‘s of automated software engineering, ASE’01. IEEE, Los Alamitos

  8. Gogolla M, Parisi-Presicce F (1998) State diagrams in UML: a formal semantics using graph transformations. In: Proceedings of the workshop on precise semantics for modeling techniques, PSMT’98. Technische Universität München, TUM-I9803

  9. Grand M (1998) Patterns in Java, vol 1. Wiley, Newyork

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gruntz D (2002) Java design: on the observer pattern. Java Report,February Harel D, Gery E (1997) Executable object modeling with statecharts. IEEE Comput 30:7:31–42

    Google Scholar 

  11. Harel D, Gery E (1997) Executable object modeling with statecharts. IEEE Comput 30:7:31–42

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kuske S (2001) A formal semantics of UML state machines based on structured graph transformation. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on the unified modeling language, UML’01. LNCS, vol 2185. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg Newyork, pp 241–256

  13. Latella D, Majzik I, Massink M (1999) Towards a formal operational semantics of UML statechart diagrams. In: Proceedings of formal methods for open object-based distributed systems, FMOODS’99, IFIP, vol 139 Kluwer, Dordrecht

  14. Mikhajlov L, Sekerinski E, Laibinis L (1999) Developing components in the presence of re-entrance. In: Proceedings of formal methods—FM’99. LNCS, vol 1709 . Springer, Berlin Heidelberg Newyork, pp 1301–1320

  15. Object Management Group OMG (2003) Unified modeling language specification version 1.5, March 2003. Available from http://www.omg.org/uml/ as formal/03-03-01

  16. Object Management~Group OMG (2004) UML2.0 superstructure specification, October 2004. Available from http://www.omg. org/uml/ as ptc/04-10-02

  17. Utwo Partners (2003) Unified modeling language 2.0 proposal, version 2.0, April 2003. Available from http://www.u2-partners.org/.

  18. Reggio G, Astesiano E, Choppy C, Hussmann H (2000) Analysing UML active classes and associated state machines —a lightweight formal approach. In: Proceedings of fundamental approaches to software engineering, FASE’00. LNCS, vol 1783. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg Newyork, pp 127–146

  19. Szyperski C (1998) Component software: beyond object-oriented programming. ACM Press, Addison Wesley, Reading

  20. Tenzer J, Stevens P (2003) Modelling recursive calls with UML state diagrams. In: Proceedings of fundamental approaches to software engineering. LNCS, vol 2621. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg Newyork pp 135–149

  21. von der Beeck, M (2001) Formalization of UML-statecharts. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on the unified modeling language, UML’01. LNCS, vol 2185. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg Newyork, pp 406–421

  22. Warmer J, Kleppe A (1999) The object constraint language: precise modeling with UML. Addison Wesley,

  23. Stevens P,Pooley R (1999) Using UML: software engineering with objects and components (updated edition). Addison Wesley Longman,Essex

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, JCMB, King’s Buildings, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK

    Jennifer Tenzer & Perdita Stevens

Authors
  1. Jennifer Tenzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Perdita Stevens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Perdita Stevens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tenzer, J., Stevens, P. On modelling recursive calls and callbacks with two variants of Unified Modelling Language state diagrams. Form Asp Comp 18, 397–420 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-006-0003-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-006-0003-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation