Advertisement

Dynamic Replacement of Active Objects in the Gilgul Programming Language

  • Pascal Costanza
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2370)

Abstract

Gilgul is an extension of the Java programming language that allows for dynamic object replacement without consistency problems. This is possible in a semantically clean way because its model strictly separates the notions of reference and comparison that are usually subsumed in the concept of object identity. This paper sketches problems that occur in attempts at replacements of active objects and presents some solutions, including both variants that preserve consistency and those that trade consistency for timeliness. The latter are enabled by means of the new recall construct that even allows for the replacement of objects with non-terminating loops.

Keywords

Virtual Machine Target Object Method Call Object Identity Active Object 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Box. Essential COM. Addison-Wesley, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Costanza Dynamic Object Replacement and Implementation-Only Classes. 6th International Workshop on Component-Oriented Programming (WCOP 2001) at ECOOP 2001, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Costanza and A. Haase. The Comparand Pattern. EuroPLoP 2001, Irsee, Germany.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Costanza, O. Stiemerling, and A. B. Cremers. Object Identity and Dynamic Recomposition of Components. in: TOOLS Europe 2001. Proceedings, IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Dmitriev. Towards Flexible and Safe Technology for Runtime Evolution of Java Language Applications. Workshop on Engineering Complex Object-Oriented Systems for Evolution (ECOOSE) at OOPSLA 2001, Tampa, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Gamma, R. Helm, R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides. Design Patterns. Addison-Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    J. Gosling, B. Joy, G. Steele, and G. Bracha. The Java Language Specification, Second Edition. Addison-Wesley, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Grogono and M. Sakkinen. Copying and Comparing: Problems and Solutions. in: ECOOP 2000. Proceedings, Springer.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Kaffe homepage. http://www.kaffe.org/
  11. 11.
    S. N. Khoshafian and G. P. Copeland. Object Identity. in: OOPSLA’ 86. Proceedings, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Kniesel. Type-Safe Delegation for Run-Time Component Adaptation. in: ECOOP’ 99. Proceedings, Springer.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Lea. Concurrent Programming in Java, Second Edition. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    I. Lee. DYMOS: A Dynamic Modification System. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA, 1983.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. Meyer. Eiffel: The Language. Prentice Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Müller. Transmigration von Objektidentitäten — Integration der Spracherweiterung Gilgul in eine Java-Laufzeitumgebung (in German). University of Bonn, Insitute of Computer Science III, diploma thesis, 2002. (in preparation)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. N. Smith. Smalltalk FAQ. http://www.dnsmith.com/SmallFAQ/, 1995.
  18. 18.
    Sun Microsystems, Inc. Java 2 SDK, Standard Edition Documentation, Version 1.3.1. http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/docs/
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    VolanoMark Java Benchmarks. http://www.volano.com/benchmarks.html

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pascal Costanza
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Computer Science IIIUniversity of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations