MASPEGHI 2004 Mechanisms for Speialization, Generalization and Inheritance

  • Ph. Lahire
  • G. Arévalo
  • H. Astudillo
  • A. P. Black
  • E. Ernst
  • M. Huchard
  • T. Opluštil
  • M. Sakkinen
  • P. Valtchev
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3344)


MASPEGHI 2004 is the third edition of the MASPEGHI workshop. This year the organizers of both the ECOOP 2002 Inheritance Workshop and MASPEGHI 2003 came together to enlarge the scope of the workshop and to address new challenges. We succeeded in gathering a diverse group of researchers and practitioners interested in mechanisms for managing specialization and generalization of programming language components. The workshop contained a series of presentations with discussions as well as group work, and the interplay between the more than 22 highly skilled and inspiring people from many different communities gave rise to fruitful discussions and the potential for continued collaboration.


Object Management Group Class Composition Component Interface Model Drive Architecture Multiple Inheritance 
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.
    Arévalo, G., Astudillo, H., Black, A.P., Ernst, E., Huchard, M., Lahire, P., Sakkinen, M., Valtchev, P. (eds.): Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Mechanisms for Specialization, Generalization and Inheritance (MASPEGHI 2004) at ECOOP 2004. University of Nice, Sophia Antipolis (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Behavior consistent specialization of object life cycles. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 11, 92–148 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Conrad, M., French, T.: Exploring the synergies between the object-oriented paradigm and mathematics: a Java led approach (to appear). International Journal on Education Sciences and Technology (2004) (to appear)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crescenzo, P., Lahire, P.: Using both specialisation and generalisation in a programming language: Why and how? In: [30], pp. 64–73.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ungar, D., Smith, R.B.: Self: The power of simplicity. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 1987, Orlando, FL, USA. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 22(12), pp. 227–242. ACM press, New York (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Agesen, O., Bak, L., Chambers, C., Chang, a.B.-W., Hölzle, U., Maloney, J., Smith, R.B., Ungar, D., Wolczko, M.: The Self 4.0 Programmer’s Reference Manual. Sun Microsystems, Inc., Mountain View (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ernst, E.: gbeta – A Language with Virtual Attributes, Block Structure, and Propagating, Dynamic Inheritance. PhD thesis, Devise, Department of Computer Science, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schaerli, N., Ducasse, S., Niestrasz, O., Black, A.P.: Traits: composable units of behaviour. In: Cardelli, L. (ed.) ECOOP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2743, pp. 248–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ernst, E.: Higher-order hierarchies. In: Cardelli, L. (ed.) ECOOP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2743, pp. 303–329. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Torgersen, M.: The expression problem revisited. In: Odersky, M. (ed.) ECOOP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3086, pp. 123–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bracha, G., Cook, W.: Mixin-based inheritance. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA/ECOOP 1990, Ottawa, Canada. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 25(10), pp. 303–311. ACM Press, New York (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flatt, M., Krishnamurthi, S., Felleisen, M.: Classes and mixins. In: Conference Record of POPL 1998: The 25th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, San Diego, California, pp. 171–183 (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zólyomi, I., Porkoláb, Z., Kozsik, T.: An extension to the subtype relationship in C++. In: Pfenning, F., Smaragdakis, Y. (eds.) GPCE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2830, pp. 209–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Varney, L.R.: Interface-oriented programming. Technical Report TR-040016, UCLA, Department of computer science (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cook, S.: OOPSLA 1987 Panel P2: Varieties of inheritance. In: OOPSLA 1987 Addendum To The Proceedings, Orlando, FL, USA. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 23(5), pp. 35–40. ACM Press, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns – Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cook, W.R.: Interfaces and specifications for the Smalltalk-80 collection classes. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 1992, Vancouver, Canada. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 27(10), pp. 1–15. ACM Press, New York (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Architecture Board ORMSC1: Model Driven Architecture (MDA), document number ormsc/01-07-01. Object Management Group (2001),
  19. 19.
    Opluštil, T.: Inheritance in SOFA components. Master thesis, Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Opluštil, T.: Inheritance in architecture description languages. In: Šafránková, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the Week of Doctoral Students conference (WDS 2003), Prague, Czech Republic, Charles University, pp. 118–123. Matfyz press (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bruneton, E., Coupaye, T., Stefani, J.B.: The Fractal component model. Specification. Draft, France Telecom R&D (2004),
  22. 22.
    Ducournau, R.: Real World” as an argument for covariant specialization in programming and modeling. In: [30], pp. 3–12.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Costa Seco, J., Caires, L.: A basic model of typed components. In: Bertino, E. (ed.) ECOOP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1850, pp. 108–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Plášil, F., Višňovský, S.: Behavior protocols for software components. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28 (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language (UML) Superstructure - Final Adopted specification. Object Management Group, Version 2.0 (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bruneton, E.: Fractal ADL tutorial 1.2. France Telecom R&D (2004),
  27. 27.
    Palsberg, J., Schwartzbach, M.I. (eds.): Proceedings of the Workshop Types, Inheritance and Assignments at ECOOP 1991, DAIMI PB-357. Computer Science Department. Aarhus University (1991)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sakkinen, M. (ed.): Proceedings of the Workshop Multiple Inheritance and Multiple Subtyping at ECOOP 1992, Working Paper WP-23. Department of Computer Science and Information Systems. University of Jyväskylä, Utrecht, the Netherlands (1992)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Black, A.P., Ernst, E., Grogono, P., Sakkinen, M. (eds.): Proceedings of the Inheritance Workshop at ECOOP 2002, vol. 12. Publications of Information Technology Research Institute. University of Jyväskylä, Málaga, Spain (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bruel, J.M., Bellahséne, Z. (eds.): Advances in OOIS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2426. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Valtchev, P., Astudillo, H., Huchard, M. (eds.): Proceedings of the workshop Managing Specialization/Generalization Hierarchies at ASE 2003. DIRO, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Huchard, M., Godin, R., Napoli, A.: Proceedings of the workshop Objects and Classification: a Natural Convergence at ECOOP 2000. Loria, University of Nancy, Sophia-Antipolis, France (2000)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Huchard, M., Godin, R., Napoli, A.: Objects and classification. In: Malenfant, J., Moisan, S., Moreira, A. (eds.) ECOOP 2000 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 1964, pp. 123–137. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bracha, G.: The Programming Language Jigsaw: Mixins, Modularity and Multiple Inheritance. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Utah (1992)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cook, W.R.: A Denotational Semantics of Inheritance. PhD thesis, Brown University (1989)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kniesel, G.: Dynamic Object-Based Inheritance with Subtyping. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department III, University of Bonn (2000)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Taivalsaari, A.: A Critical View of Inheritance and Reusability in Object-Oriented Programming. PhD thesis, University of Jyväskylä (1993)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Meyer, B.: Object-oriented Software Construction, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, New York (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tip, F., Sweeney, P.F.: Class hierarchy specialization. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 1997, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 32(10), pp. 271–285. ACM Press, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ducournau, R., Habib, M., Huchard, M., Mugnier, M.-L.: Proposal for a monotonic multiple inheritance linearization. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 1994, Portland, Oregon, USA. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 29(10), pp. 164–175. ACM Press, New York (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Godin, R., Mili, H.: Building and maintaining analysis-level class hierarchies using Galois lattices. In: Proceedings OOPSLA 1993, Washington, DC, USA. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 28(10), pp. 394–410. ACM Press, New York (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hauck, F.J.: Inheritance modeled with explicit bindings: An approach to typed inheritance. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 28, 231–239 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Agesen, O., Palsberg, J., Schwartzbach, M.I.: Type inference of SELF: Analysis of objects with dynamic and multiple inheritance. In: Nierstrasz, O. (ed.) ECOOP 1993. LNCS, vol. 707, pp. 247–267. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sakkinen, M.: A critique of the inheritance principles of C++. Computing Systems 5, 69–110 (1992)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ducournau, R., Habib, M., Huchard, M., Mugnier, M.-L.: Monotonic conflict resolution mechanisms for inheritance. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 1992, Vancouver, Canada. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 27(10), pp. 16–24. ACM Press, New York (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Szyperski, C.A.: Import is not inheritance - why we need both: Modules and classes. In: Madsen, O.L. (ed.) ECOOP 1992. LNCS, vol. 615, pp. 19–32. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bracha, G., Lindstrom, G.: Modularity meets inheritance. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society International Conference on Computer Languages, Washington, DC, pp. 282–290. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cardelli, L.: Structural subtyping and the notion of power type. In: POPL 1988. Proceedings of the conference on Principles of programming languages, San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 70–79. ACM Press, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cardelli, L., Wegner, P.: On understanding types, data abstraction and polymorphism. ACM Computing Surveys 17, 480–521 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cardelli, L.: A semantics of multiple inheritance. In: Plotkin, G., MacQueen, D.B., Kahn, G. (eds.) Semantics of Data Types 1984. LNCS, vol. 173, pp. 51–67. Springer, Heidelberg (1984)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ph. Lahire
    • 1
  • G. Arévalo
    • 2
  • H. Astudillo
    • 3
  • A. P. Black
    • 4
  • E. Ernst
    • 5
  • M. Huchard
    • 6
  • T. Opluštil
    • 1
  • M. Sakkinen
    • 7
  • P. Valtchev
    • 8
  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Informatique Signaux et Systèmes de Sophia Antipolis (I3S)Université de Nice Sophia antipolisFrance
  2. 2.Software Composition Group, Institut für Informatik und angewandte MathematikBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Departamento de InformáticaUniversidad Técnica Federico Santa MaríaValparaísoChile
  4. 4.Dept. of Computer Science & EngineeringOGI School of Science & Engineering, Oregon Health & Science University (OGI/OHSU)BeavertonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of AarhusDenmark
  6. 6.Laboratoire d’Informatique, de Robotique et Micro-électronique de Montpellier (LIRMM), CNRS and Université de Montpellier 2France
  7. 7.Department of Computer Science and Information SystemsUniversity of JyväskyläFinland
  8. 8.Dépt. d’Informatique et recherche opérationnelle (DIRO)Université de MontréalQuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations