On Timed Coordination Languages

  • J. -M. Jacquet
  • K. De Bosschere
  • A. Brogi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1906)


Although very simple and elegant, Linda-style coordination models lack the notion of time, and are therefore not able to precisely model real-life coordination applications, featuring time-outs and soft real-time constraints. This paper aims at introducing time in these models. To that end, we consider two notions of time, relative time and absolute time, and, for each notion, two types of features. On the one hand, with respect to relative time, we describe two extensions: (i) a delay mechanism to postpone the execution of communication primitives, and (ii) explicit deadlines on the validity of tuples and on the duration of suspension of communication operations. On the other hand, for absolute time, we introduce: (iii) a wait primitive capable of waiting till an absolute point of time, and (iv) time intervals, both on tuples in the data store and on communication operations.

The resulting four coordination models are analyzed and compared both from the semantics viewpoint and from the implementation viewpoint. Moreover, a few programming examples suggest their practical interest.


Operational Semantic Transition Rule Absolute Time Coordination Model Tuple Space 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J.-M. Andreoli and R. Pareschi. Linear Objects: Logical Processes with Built-in Inheritance. New Generation Computing, 9(3–4):445–473, 1991.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Arbab, I. Herman, and P. Spilling. An Overview of Manifold and its Implementation. Concurrency: practice and experience, 5(1):23–70, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Banatre and D. LeMetayer. Programming by Multiset Transformation. Communications of the ACM, 36(1):98–111, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Berry and G. Gonthier. The Esterel Synchronous Programming Language: Design, Semantics, Implementation. Science of Computer Programming, 19, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F.S. De Boer, M. Gabbrielli, and M.C. Meo. A Timed Concurrent Constraint Language. Information and Computation, pages 47–61, 2000. To appear.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. The Concurrent Language Shared Prolog. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):99–123, January 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Busi, R. Gorrieri, and G. Zavattaro. Process Calculi for Coordination: from Linda to JavaSpaces. In Proc. AMAST, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, 2000. To appear.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. Carriero and D. Gelernter. Linda in Context. Communications of the ACM, 32(4):444–458, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Caspi, N. Halbwachs, P. Pilaud, and J. Plaice. Lustre: a Declarative Language for Programming Synchronous Systems. In Proc. POPL’87. ACM Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Ciancarini. Distributed Programming with Logic Tuple Spaces. New Generation Computing, 12(3):251–284, 1994.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Ciancarini and D. Rossi. Jada: Coordination and Communication for Java Agents. In Proc. 2nd International Workshop on Mobile Object Systems, volume 1222 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 213–228. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F.S. de Boer and C. Palamidessi. Embedding as a Tool for Language Comparison. Information and Computation, 108(1):128–157, 1994.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. de Bosschere and J.-M. Jacquet. µ2 Log: Towards Remote Coordination. In P. Ciancarini and C. Hankin, editors, Proceedings of the Coordination Conference, volume 1061 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 142–159. Springer-Verlag, April 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Freeman, S. Hupfer, and K. Arnold. JavaSpaces: Principles, Patterns, and Practice. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Gelernter and N. Carriero. Coordination Languages and Their Significance. Communications of the ACM, 35(2):97–107, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Harel. Statecharts: a Visual Formalism for Complex Systems. Science of Computer Programming, 8, 1987.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. Horita, J.W. de Bakker, and J.J.M.M. Rutten. Fully abstract denotational models for nonuiform concurrent languages. Information and computation, 115(1):125–178, 1994.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J.-M. Jacquet and K. De Bosschere. On the Semantics of µLog. Future Generation Computer Systems, 10:93–135, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    F. Maraninchi. Operational and Compositional Semantics of Synchronous Automaton Composition. In Proc. Concurr’92, volume 630 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Gelernter N. Carriero and L. Zuck. Bauhaus Linda. In In P. Ciancarini, O. Nierstrasz, and A. Yonezawa, editors, Object based models and languages for concurrent systems, volume 924 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 66–76. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. De Nicola, G. Ferrari, and R. Pugliese. KLAIM: a Kernel Language for Agents Interaction and Mobility. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1998.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    G.A. Papadopolous and F. Arbab. Coordination Models and Languages. Advances in Computers, 48, 1998.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Rowstron and A. Wood. A Set of Tuple Space Primitives for Distributed Coordination. In Proc. 30th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, volume 1, pages 379–388. IEEE Press, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    V. Saraswat, R. Jagadeesan, and V. Gupta. Programming in Timed Concurrent Constraint Languages. In B. Mayoh, E. Tougu, and J. Penjam, editors, Computer and System Sciences, volume ASI-131 of NATO. Springer Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    V. Saraswat, R. Jagadeesan, and V. Gupta. Timed Default Concurrent Constraint Programming. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 11, 1996.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    V.A. Saraswat. Concurrent Constraint Programming Languages. The MIT Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    E.Y. Shapiro. Embeddings among Concurrent Programming Languages. In W.R. Cleaveland, editor, Proceedings of CONCUR’92, pages 486–503. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    G. Smolka. The Oz Programming Model. In J. Van Leuwen, editor, Computer Science Today, volume 1000 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 324–343. Springer Verlag, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. Tini. On the Expressiveness of Timed Concurrent Constraint Programming. Electronics Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 1999.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    R. Tolksdorf. Coordinating Services in Open Distributed Systems with LAURA. InP. Ciancarini and C. Hankin, editors, Coordination’96: First International Conference on Coordination Models and Languages, volume 1061 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    P. Wyckoff, S.W. McLaughry, T.J. Lehman, and D.A. Ford. TSpaces. IBM Systems Journal, 37(3), 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. -M. Jacquet
    • 1
  • K. De Bosschere
    • 2
  • A. Brogi
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of NamurBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Electronics and Information SystemsGhent UniversityThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PisaItaly

Personalised recommendations