To have impact, a grand challenge should provide a way for diverse research to be integrated in a synergistic fashion. Synergy in the JML project comes from a shared specification language, and thus holds several lessons for the verifying compiler grand challenge. An important lesson is that the project should focus considerable resources on specification language design, which still contains many open research problems. Another important lesson is that, to support such a specification language, the project needs to involve groups doing research on extensible compilers and integrated development environments.


Grand Challenge Language Design Java Modeling Language Execution Platform Open Research Problem 
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.
    Hoare, T.: The verifying compiler: A grand challenge for computing research. Journal of the ACM 50(1), 63–69 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burdy, L., Cheon, Y., Cok, D.R., Ernst, M.D., Kiniry, J.R., Leavens, G.T., Leino, K.R.M., Poll, E.: An overview of JML tools and applications. Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 7(3), 212–232 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leavens, G.T., Cheon, Y., Clifton, C., Ruby, C., Cok, D.R.: How the design of JML accommodates both runtime assertion checking and formal verification. Science of Computer Programming 55(1-3), 185–208 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flanagan, C., Leino, K.R.M., Lillibridge, M., Nelson, G., Saxe, J.B., Stata, R.: Extended static checking for Java. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2002 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2002), June 2002. SIGPLAN, vol. 37(5), pp. 234–245. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meyer, B.: Object-oriented Software Construction, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, New York (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dhara, K.K., Leavens, G.T.: Forcing behavioral subtyping through specification inheritance. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering, March 1996. A corrected version is ISU CS TR #95-20c, pp. 258–267. IEEE Computer Society Press, Berlin (1996), Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leavens, G.T.: JML’s rich, inherited specifications for behavioral subtypes. In: Liu, Z., He, J. (eds.) ICFEM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4260, pp. 2–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leavens, G.T., Naumann, D.A.: Behavioral subtyping, specification inheritance, and modular reasoning. Technical Report 06-20b, Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011 (September 2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leavens, G.T., Poll, E., Clifton, C., Cheon, Y., Ruby, C., Cok, D.R., Müller, P., Kiniry, J., Chalin, P.: JML reference manual. In: Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University (February 2007),
  10. 10.
    Barnett, M., Naumann, D.A., Schulte, W., Sun, Q.: Allowing state changes in specifications. In: Müller, G. (ed.) ETRICS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3995, pp. 321–336. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Naumann, D.A.: Observational Purity and Encapsulation. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, pp. 190–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barnett, M., DeLine, R., Fähndrich, M., Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W.: Verification of object-oriented programs with invariants. Journal of Object Technology 3(6), 27–56 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P.: Object invariants in dynamic contexts. In: Odersky, M. (ed.) ECOOP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3086, pp. 491–516. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leino, K.R.M., Nelson, G.: Data abstraction and information hiding. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 24(5), 491–553 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Müller, P., Poetzsch-Heffter, A., Leavens, G.T.: Modular specification of frame properties in JML. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 15(2), 117–154 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Müller, P., Poetzsch-Heffter, A., Leavens, G.T.: Modular invariants for layered object structures. Science of Computer Programming 62(3), 253–286 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boyland, J., Noble, J., Retert, W.: Capabilities for sharing. In: Knudsen, J.L. (ed.) ECOOP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2072, pp. 1–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Noble, J., Vitek, J., Potter, J.: Flexible alias protection. In: Jul, E. (ed.) ECOOP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1445, pp. 158–185. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dietl, W., Müller, P.: Universes: Lightweight ownership for JML. Journal of Object Technology 4(8), 5–32 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Szyperski, C., Gruntz, D., Murer, S.: Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming, 2nd edn. ACM Press and Addison-Wesley, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ernst, G.W., Navlakha, J.K., Ogden, W.F.: Verification of programs with procedure-type parameters. Acta Informatica 18(2), 149–169 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goguen, J.A.: Parameterized programming. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-10(5), 528–543 (1984)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Büchi, M., Weck, W.: A plea for grey-box components. Technical Report 122, Turku Center for Computer Science, Presented at the Workshop on Foundations of Component-Based Systems, Zürich (1997) (September 1997),
  24. 24.
    Büchi, M., Weck, W.: The greybox approach: When blackbox specifications hide too much. Technical Report 297, Turku Center for Computer Science (August (1999),
  25. 25.
    Büchi, M.: Safe language mechanisms for modularization and concurrency. Technical Report TUCS Dissertations No. 28, Turku Center for Computer Science (May 2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: The SLAM project: Debugging system software via static analysis. In: Conference Record of POPL 2002: The 29th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Portland, Oregon, January 16–18, 2002, pp. 1–3 (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems. Springer, New York (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Corbett, J.C., Dwyer, M.B., Hatcliff, J., Laubach, S., Pasareanu, C.S., Robby, Z.H.: Bandera: Extracting finite-state models from Java source code. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, June 2000, pp. 439–448. ACM Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming 8(3), 231–274 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cheon, Y., Perumendla, A.: Specifying and checking method call sequences in JML. In: Arabnia, H.R., Reza, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice (SERP 2005), June 27-29, 2005, vol. II, pp. 511–516. CSREA Press, Las Vegas, Nevada (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rodríguez, E., Dwyer, M.B., Flanagan, C., Hatcliff, J., Leavens, G.T.: Robby: Extending JML for modular specification and verification of multi-threaded programs. In: Black, A.P. (ed.) ECOOP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3586, pp. 551–576. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guttag, J.V., Horning, J.J., Garland, S., Jones, K., Modet, A., Wing, J.: Larch: Languages and Tools for Formal Specification. Springer, New York (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary T. Leavens
    • 1
  • Curtis Clifton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations