Advertisement

Preserving Contract Satisfiability Under Non-monotonic Composition

  • Jonas Westman
  • Mattias Nyberg
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10854)

Abstract

A contracts theory embeds non-monotonic composition (with respect to implementation) if the fact that a composition of two components implements a specification \(\mathcal {S}\) does not generally follow from one of these components implementing \(\mathcal {S}\). In contrast to monotonic composition, non-monotonic composition offers the additional expressiveness of specifying properties that only hold locally for a component since non-monotonic composition does not enforce all properties to be preserved when composing. Despite that this additional expressiveness is clearly needed, it implies that cases where monotony is indeed desired needs to be managed explicitly. The present paper elaborates on this topic by introducing a contracts theory embedding non-monotonic composition, and exploring conditions for ensuring monotonic composition in the context of this theory.

Keywords

Contracts Non-monotonic Composition Satisfiability 

References

  1. 1.
    Bauer, S.S., David, A., Hennicker, R., Guldstrand Larsen, K., Legay, A., Nyman, U., Wąsowski, A.: Moving from specifications to contracts in component-based design. In: de Lara, J., Zisman, A. (eds.) FASE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7212, pp. 43–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28872-2_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Ferrari, A., Mangeruca, L., Passerone, R., Sofronis, C.: Multiple viewpoint contract-based specification and design. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2007. LNCS, vol. 5382, pp. 200–225. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92188-2_9CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Nickovic, D., Passerone, R., Raclet, J.B., Reinkemeier, P., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A., Damm, W., Henzinger, T., Larsen, K.G.: Contracts for system design. Rapport de recherche RR-8147, INRIA, November 2012. http://hal.inria.fr/hal-00757488
  4. 4.
    Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Passerone, R.: Multi-viewpoint state machines for rich component models. In: Nicolescu, G., Mosterman, P. (eds.) Model-Based Design for Embedded Systems, pp. 487–518. Taylor & Francis (2009). http://www.google.se/books?id=8Cjg2mM-m1MC
  5. 5.
    Brookes, S.D., Hoare, C.A.R., Roscoe, A.W.: A theory of communicating sequential processes. J. ACM 31(3), 560–599 (1984). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/828.833
  6. 6.
    Cimatti, A., Tonetta, S.: A property-based proof system for contract-based design. In: 2012 38th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, pp. 21–28, September 2012Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dill, D.L.: Trace theory for automatic hierarchical verification of speed-independent circuits. In: Proceedings of the Fifth MIT Conference on Advanced Research in VLSI, pp. 51–65. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=88056.88061
  8. 8.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM 12(10), 576–580 (1969). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/363235.363259
  9. 9.
    Maier, P.: A set-theoretic framework for assume-guarantee reasoning. In: Orejas, F., Spirakis, P.G., van Leeuwen, J. (eds.) ICALP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2076, pp. 821–834. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48224-5_67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meyer, B.: Applying “Design by Contract”. IEEE Comput. 25, 40–51 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Negulescu, R.: Process spaces. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Concurrency Theory, CONCUR 20000, pp. 199–213. Springer, London (2000). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=646735.701627
  12. 12.
    Quinton, S., Graf, S.: Contract-based verification of hierarchical systems of components. In: Sixth IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, SEFM 2008, pp. 377–381, November 2008Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Westman, J., Nyberg, M.: Conditions of contracts for separating responsibilities in heterogeneous systems. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 52(2), 147–192 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-017-0294-7
  14. 14.
    Wolf, E.S.: Hierarchical models of synchronous circuits for formal verification and substitution. Ph.D. thesis. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA (1996). uMI Order No. GAX96-12052Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)StockholmSweden
  2. 2.ScaniaSödertäljeSweden

Personalised recommendations