Proper Protocol

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9660)


Treating interaction as an explicit first-class concept, complete with its own composition operators, leads to a model of concurrency that allows direct specification and manipulation of protocols as proper mathematical objects. Reo [2, 5, 6, 8] serves as a premier example of such an interaction-centric model of concurrency.

In this paper, we peruse Reo and explain how its model of protocols as encapsulated, reusable constructs facilitates their fulfilling of the more prominent role slated for them in engineering of modular, verifiable, scalable concurrent software. We also explore clues enlaced with some recent results of our ongoing work on compiling Reo protocol specifications into efficient executable code, which sketch a promising perspective for future work on high-level protocol specification languages.


Composition Operator Single Processor Total Execution Time Concurrent Program Interaction Protocol 
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.


  1. 1.
    Extensible Coordination Tools home page.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Agha, G.: Actors: A Model of Concurrent Computation in Distributed Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amdahl, G.M.: Validity of the single processor approach to achieving large scale computing capabilities. In: American Federation of Information Processing Societies: Proceedings of the AFIPS 1967 Spring Joint Computer Conference, 18–20 April 1967, Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA. AFIPS Conference Proceedings, vol. 30, pp. 483–485. AFIPS/ACM/Thomson Book Company, Washington D.C. (1967)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arbab, F.: Reo: a channel-based coordination model for component composition. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 14(3), 329–366 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arbab, F.: Abstract behavior types: a foundation model for components and their composition. Sci. Comput. Program. 55(1–3), 3–52 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arbab, F.: Puff, the magic protocol. In: Agha, G., Danvy, O., Meseguer, J. (eds.) Formal Modeling: Actors, Open Systems, Biological Systems. LNCS, vol. 7000, pp. 169–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arbab, F., Mavaddat, F.: Coordination through channel composition. In: Arbab, F., Talcott, C. (eds.) COORDINATION 2002. LNCS, vol. 2315, pp. 22–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arvind, Gostelow, K.P., Plouffe, W.: Indeterminancy, monitors, and dataflow. In: Rosen, S., Denning, P.J. (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Operating System Principles, SOSP 1977, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA, 16–18 November 1977, pp. 159–169. ACM (1977)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Attie, P., Baranov, E., Bliudze, S., Jaber, M., Sifakis, J.: A general framework for architecture composability. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Salaün, G. (eds.) SEFM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8702, pp. 128–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baeten, J.C.M., Weijland, W.P.: Process Algebra. Cambridge University Press, New York (1990)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baier, C., Sirjani, M., Arbab, F., Rutten, J.: Modeling component connectors in Reo by constraint automata. Sci. Comput. Program. 61(2), 75–113 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bailey, D.H., Barszcz, E., Barton, J.T., Browning, D.S., Carter, R.L., Dagum, L., Fatoohi, R.A., Frederickson, P.O., Lasinski, T.A., Schreiber, R., Simon, H.D., Venkatakrishnan, V., Weeratunga, S.: The NAS parallel benchmarks. IJHPCA 5(3), 63–73 (1991)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Basu, A., Bozga, M., Sifakis, J.: Modeling heterogeneous real-time components in BIP. In: Proceedings of SEFM 2006, pp. 3–12. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Benveniste, A., Caspi, P., Le Guernic, P., Halbwachs, N.: Data-flow synchronous languages. In: de Bakker, J.W., de Roever, W.-P., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) REX 1993. LNCS, vol. 803, pp. 1–45. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bergstra, J.A., Klop, J.W.: Process algebra for synchronous communication. Inf. Control 60, 109–137 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berry, G.: Esterel and Jazz: two synchronous languages for circuit design. In: Pierre, L., Kropf, T. (eds.) CHARME 1999. LNCS, vol. 1703, p. 1. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dean Brock, J., Ackerman, W.B.: Scenarios: a model of non-determinate computation. In: Díaz, J., Ramos, I. (eds.) Formalization of Programming Concepts. LNCS, vol. 107, pp. 252–259. Springer, Heidelberg (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buck, J.T., Ha, S., Lee, E.A., Messerschmitt, D.G.: Ptolemy: a framework for simulating and prototyping heterogenous systems. Int. J. Comput. Simul. 4(2), 155–182 (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carbone, M., Yoshida, N., Honda, K.: Asynchronous session types: exceptions and multiparty interactions. In: Bernardo, M., Padovani, L., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) SFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5569, pp. 187–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Caspi, P., Pilaud, D., Halbwachs, N., Plaice, J.: Lustre: a declarative language for programming synchronous systems. In: Conference Record of the Fourteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Munich, Germany, 21–23 January 1987, pp. 178–188. ACM Press (1987)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dennis, J.B., Gao, G.R.: An efficient pipelined dataflow processor architecture. In: Michael, G.A. (ed.) Proceedings Supercomputing 1988, Orlando, FL, USA, 12–17 November 1988, pp. 368–373. IEEE Computer Society (1988)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fokkink, W.: Introduction to Process Algebra. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science, An EATCS Series. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gautier, T., Le Guernic, P., Besnard, L.: SIGNAL: a declarative language for synchronous programming of real-time systems. In: Kahn, G. (ed.) Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture. LNCS, vol. 274, pp. 257–277. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    González-Vélez, H., Leyton, M.: A survey of algorithmic skeleton frameworks: high-level structured parallel programming enablers. Softw. Pract. Exper. 40(12), 1135–1160 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gustafson, J.L.: Reevaluating Amdahl’s law. Commun. ACM 31(5), 532–533 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Halle, S.: A Study of Frameworks for Collectively Meeting the Productivity, Portability, and Adoptability Goals for Parallel Software. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Halle, S., Cohen, A.: A mutable hardware abstraction to replace threads. In: Rajopadhye, S., Mills Strout, M. (eds.) LCPC 2011. LNCS, vol. 7146, pp. 185–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Herlihy, M., Moss, J.E.B.: Transactional memory: architectural support for lock-free data structures. SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News 21(2), 289–300 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Honda, K., Mukhamedov, A., Brown, G., Chen, T.-C., Yoshida, N.: Scribbling interactions with a formal foundation. In: Natarajan, R., Ojo, A. (eds.) ICDCIT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6536, pp. 55–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Honda, K., Yoshida, N., Carbone, M.: Multiparty asynchronous session types. In: Necula, G.C., Wadler, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 35th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2008, San Francisco, California, USA, 7–12 January 2008, pp. 273–284. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jongmans, S.-S., Arbab, F.: Global consensus through local synchronization: a formal basis for partially-distributed coordination. Sci. Comput. Program. 115–116, 199–224 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jongmans, S.-S., Arbab, F.: Overview of thirty semantic formalisms for Reo. Sci. Ann. Comput. Sci. 22(1), 201–251 (2012)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jongmans, S.-S.T.Q., Arbab, F.: Global consensus through local synchronization. In: Canal, C., Villari, M. (eds.) ESOCC 2013. CCIS, vol. 393, pp. 174–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jongmans, S.-S., Arbab, F.: Modularizing and specifying protocols among threads. In: Proceedings of PLACES 2012. EPTCS, vol. 109, pp. 34–45. CoRR (2013)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jongmans, S.-S., Arbab, F.: Toward sequentializing overparallelized protocol code. In: Proceedings of ICE 2014, EPTCS, vol. 166, pp. 38–44. CoRR (2014)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jongmans, S.-S.T.Q., Halle, S., Arbab, F.: Automata-based optimization of interaction protocols for scalable multicore platforms. In: Kühn, E., Pugliese, R. (eds.) COORDINATION 2014. LNCS, vol. 8459, pp. 65–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jongmans, S.-S., Halle, S., Arbab, F.: Reo: a dataflow inspired language for multicore. In: Proceedings of DFM 2013, pp. 42–50. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jongmans, S.-S., Santini, F., Arbab, F.: Partially-distributed coordination with Reo. In: Proceedings of PDP 2014, pp. 697–706. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jongmans, S.-S., Santini, F., Sargolzaei, M., Arbab, F., Afsarmanesh, H.: Orchestrating web services using Reo: from circuits and behaviors to automatically generated code. SOCA 8(4), 277–297 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jongmans, S.-S.T.Q., Arbab, F.: Can high throughput atone for high latency in compiler-generated protocol code? In: Dastani, M., Sirjani, M. (eds.) FSEN 2015. LNCS, vol. 9392, pp. 238–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jongmans, S.-S.T.Q., Santini, F., Arbab, F.: Partially distributed coordination with Reo and constraint automata. SOCA 9(3–4), 311–339 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jongmans, S.-S.T.Q.: Automata-Theoretic Protocol Programming: Parallel Computation, Threads and Their Interaction, Optimized Compilation, [at a] High Level of Abstraction. Ph.D. thesis, Leiden University (2015, submitted)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kahn, G.: The semantics of a simple language for parallel programming. In: Rosenfeld, J.L. (ed.) Information Processing, pp. 471–475. North Holland, Amsterdam (1974)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kahn, G., MacQueen, D.B.: Coroutines and networks of parallel processes. In: IFIP Congress, pp. 993–998 (1977)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Knight, T.: An architecture for mostly functional languages. In: Proceedings of the 1986 ACM Conference on LISP and Functional Programming, LFP 1986, pp. 105–112. ACM, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Liu, X., Xiong, Y., Lee, E.A.: The ptolemy II framework for visual languages. In: 2002 IEEE CS International Symposium on Human-Centric Computing Languages and Environments (HCC 2001), 5–7 September 2001, Stresa, Italy, p. 50. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Milner, R.: A Calculus of Communicating Systems. LNCS, vol. 92. Springer, Heidelberg (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Milner, R.: Elements of interaction - turing award lecture. Commun. ACM 36(1), 78–89 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ng, N., de Figueiredo Coutinho, J.G., Yoshida, N.: Protocols by default - safe MPI code generation based on session types. In: Franke, B. (ed.) CC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9031, pp. 212–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ng, N., Yoshida, N.: Pabble: parameterised scribble for parallel programming. In: 22nd Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed, and Network-Based Processing, PDP 2014, Torino, Italy, 12–14 February 2014, pp. 707–714. IEEE Computer Society (2014)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sangiorgi, D., Walker, D.: Pi-Calculus: A Theory of Mobile Processes. Cambridge University Press, New York (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Shavit, N., Touitou, D.: Software transactional memory. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 1995, pp. 204–213. ACM, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Yoshida, N., Hu, R., Neykova, R., Ng, N.: The scribble protocol language. In: Abadi, M., Lluch Lafuente, A. (eds.) TGC 2013. LNCS, vol. 8358, pp. 22–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Formal MethodsCWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Leiden Institute for Advanced Computer ScienceLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations