Open Bisimulation for Aspects

  • Radha Jagadeesan
  • Corin Pitcher
  • James Riely
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5490)

Abstract

We define bisimilarity for an aspect extension of the untyped lambda calculus and prove that it is sound and complete for contextual reasoning about programs. The language we study is very small, yet powerful enough to encode mutable references and a range of temporal pointcuts. We extend formal studies of Open Modules to this more general setting. Examples suggest that aspects are amenable to techniques developed for stateful higher-order programs. To our knowledge, this is the first study of coinductive reasoning principles for aspect programs.

Keywords

Lambda Calculus Evaluation Context Call Transition Call Label Aspect Language 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aksit, M., Wakita, K., Bosch, J., Bergmans, L., Yonezawa, A.: Abstracting object-interactions using composition-filters. In: Object-based distributed processing. LNCS (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergmans, L.: Composing Concurrent Objects - Applying Composition Filters for the Development and Reuse of Concurrent Object-Oriented Programs. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kiczales, G., Hilsdale, E., Hugunin, J., Kersten, M., Palm, J., Griswold, W.G.: An overview of AspectJ. In: Knudsen, J.L. (ed.) ECOOP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2072, pp. 327–355. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kiczales, G., Lamping, J., Mendhekar, A., Maeda, C., Lopes, C.V., Loingtier, J.-M., Irwin, J.: Aspect-oriented programming. In: Aksit, M., Matsuoka, S. (eds.) ECOOP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1241, pp. 220–242. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lieberherr, K.J.: Adaptive Object-Oriented Software: The Demeter method with propagation patterns. PWS Publishing Company (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ossher, H., Tarr, P.: Multi-dimensional separation of concerns and the hyperspace approach. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Software Architectures and Component Technology: The State of the Art in Software Development (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Filman, R., Friedman, D.: Aspect-oriented programming is quantification and obliviousness. In: Workshop on Advanced Separation of Concerns (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tarr, P.L., Ossher, H.: Hyper/J: Multi-dimensional separation of concerns for Java. In: ICSE, pp. 729–730 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coady, Y., Kiczales, G., Feeley, M.J., Smolyn, G.: Using AspectC to improve the modularity of path-specific customization in operating system code. In: ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE, pp. 88–98 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dutchyn, C., Tucker, D.B., Krishnamurthi, S.: Semantics and scoping of aspects in higher-order languages. Sci. Comput. Program. 63(3), 207–239 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walker, D., Zdancewic, S., Ligatti, J.: A theory of aspects. In: Runciman, C., Shivers, O. (eds.) ICFP, pp. 127–139. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sangiorgi, D.: Bisimulation: From the origins to today. In: LICS, pp. 298–302. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sangiorgi, D.: The bisimulation proof method: Enhancements and open problems. In: Gorrieri, R., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) FMOODS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4037, pp. 18–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gordon, A.D.: Operational equivalences for untyped and polymorphic object calculi. In: Gordon, A.D., Pitts, A.M. (eds.) Higher-Order Operational Techniques in Semantics, Publications of the Newton Institute, pp. 9–54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pitts, A.M.: Operationally-based theories of program equivalence. In: Dybjer, P., Pitts, A.M. (eds.) Semantics and Logics of Computation, Publications of the Newton Institute, pp. 241–298. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sumii, E., Pierce, B.C.: A bisimulation for type abstraction and recursion. J. ACM 54(5) (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jeffrey, A., Rathke, J.: A theory of bisimulation for a fragment of concurrent ML with local names. Theor. Comput. Sci. 323(1-3), 1–48 (1999); Preliminary version appeared in IEEE LICS 1999MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koutavas, V., Wand, M.: Small bisimulations for reasoning about higher-order imperative programs. In: Morrisett and Jones [50], pp. 141–152Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gordon, A.D., Rees, G.D.: Bisimilarity for a first-order calculus of objects with subtyping. In: POPL, pp. 386–395 (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koutavas, V., Wand, M.: Bisimulations for untyped imperative objects. In: Sestoft, P. (ed.) ESOP 2006. LNCS, vol. 3924, pp. 146–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meyer, A.R., Sieber, K.: Towards fully abstract semantics for local variables. In: POPL, pp. 191–203 (1988)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kiczales, G., Mezini, M.: Aspect-oriented programming and modular reasoning. In: ICSE 2005: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on software engineering, pp. 49–58. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aldrich, J.: Open modules: Modular reasoning about advice. In: Black, A.P. (ed.) ECOOP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3586, pp. 144–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ongkingco, N., Avgustinov, P., Tibble, J., Hendren, L., de Moor, O., Sittampalam, G.: Adding open modules to AspectJ. In: AOSD 2006: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Aspect-oriented software development, pp. 39–50. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Avgustinov, P., Bodden, E., Hajiyev, E., Hendren, L., Lhoták, O., de Moor, O., Ongkingco, N., Sereni, D., Sittampalam, G., Tibble, J.: Aspects for trace monitoring. In: Havelund, K., Núñez, M., Roşu, G., Wolff, B. (eds.) FATES 2006 and RV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4262, pp. 20–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Alur, R.: The benefits of exposing calls and returns. In: Abadi, M., de Alfaro, L. (eds.) CONCUR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3653, pp. 2–3. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Alur, R., Madhusudan, P.: Adding nesting structure to words. In: Ibarra, O.H., Dang, Z. (eds.) DLT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4036, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Clifton, C., Leavens, G.T.: MiniMAO: An imperative core language for studying aspect-oriented reasoning. Sci. Comput. Program. 63(3), 321–374 (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jagadeesan, R., Jeffrey, A., Riely, J.: An untyped calculus of aspect oriented programs. In: Cardelli, L. (ed.) ECOOP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2743, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Clifton, C., Leavens, G.T., Wand, M.: Parameterized aspect calculus: A core calculus for the direct study of aspect-oriented languages (2003), http://www.cs.iastate.edu/~cclifton/papers/TR03-13.pdf
  31. 31.
    Abadi, M., Cardelli, L.: A Theory of Objects. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rajan, H., Sullivan, K.J.: Classpects: unifying aspect- and object-oriented language design. In: Roman, G.-C., Griswold, W.G., Nuseibeh, B. (eds.) ICSE, pp. 59–68. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wand, M., Kiczales, G., Dutchyn, C.: A semantics for advice and dynamic join points in aspect-oriented programming. TOPLAS 26(5), 890–910 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Masuhara, H., Kiczales, G., Dutchyn, C.: A compilation and optimization model for aspect-oriented programs. In: Hedin, G. (ed.) CC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2622, pp. 46–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ligatti, J., Walker, D., Zdancewic, S.: A type-theoretic interpretation of pointcuts and advice. Sci. Comput. Program. 63(3), 240–266 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jagadeesan, R., Jeffrey, A., Riely, J.: Typed parametric polymorphism for aspects. Sci. Comput. Program. 63(3), 267–296 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Li, H.C., Krishnamurthi, S., Fisler, K.: Modular verification of open features using three-valued model checking. Autom. Softw. Eng. 12(3), 349–382 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sihman, M., Katz, S.: Model checking applications of aspects and superimpositions. In: Foundations of Aspect Languages (2003)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ubayashi, N., Tamai, T.: Aspect-oriented programming with model checking. In: AOSD 2002: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Aspect-oriented software development, pp. 148–154. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dantas, D.S., Walker, D.: Harmless advice. In: Morrisett and Jones [50], pp. 383–396Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nakajima, S., Tamai, T.: Lightweight formal analysis of aspect-oriented models. In: UML 2004 Workshop on Aspect-Oriented Modeling (2004)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Abramsky, S., Ong, C.-H.L.: Full abstraction in the lazy lambda calculus. Inf. Comput. 105(2), 159–267 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gordon, A.D.: Bisimilarity as a theory of functional programming. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 1 (1995)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Howe, D.J.: Proving congruence of bisimulation in functional programming languages. Inf. Comput. 124(2), 103–112 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sumii, E., Pierce, B.C.: A bisimulation for dynamic sealing. Theor. Comput. Sci. 375(1-3), 169–192 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Koutavas, V., Wand, M.: Proving class equivalence (submitted for publication) (July 2006)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sangiorgi, D., Kobayashi, N., Sumii, E.: Environmental bisimulations for higher-order languages. In: LICS, pp. 293–302. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sangiorgi, D.: A theory of bisimulation for the pi-calculus. Acta Inf. 33(1), 69–97 (1996)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lassen, S.: Eager normal form bisimulation. In: LICS, pp. 345–354. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lassen, S.B.: Head normal form bisimulation for pairs and the λμ-calculus. In: LICS, pp. 297–306. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Støvring, K., Lassen, S.B.: A complete, co-inductive syntactic theory of sequential control and state. In: Hofmann, M., Felleisen, M. (eds.) POPL, pp. 161–172. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Abramsky, S., Jagadeesan, R., Malacaria, P.: Full abstraction for PCF. Inf. Comput. 163(2), 409–470 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hyland, J.M.E., Ong, C.-H.L.: On full abstraction for PCF: I, II, and III. Inf. Comput. 163(2), 285–408 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lassen, S.B., Levy, P.B.: Typed normal form bisimulation. In: Duparc, J., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) CSL 2007. LNCS, vol. 4646, pp. 283–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bockisch, C., Haupt, M., Mezini, M., Ostermann, K.: Virtual machine support for dynamic join points. In: AOSD, pp. 83–92 (2004)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pierce, B.C.: Types and Programming Languages. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gordon, A.D.: A tutorial on co-induction and functional programming. In: Glasgow functional programming workshop, pp. 78–95. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Moggi, E.: Notions of computation and monads. Information and Computation 93(1), 55–92 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Felleisen, M., Friedman, D.P., Kohlbecker, E., Duba, B.: A syntactic theory of sequential control. Theor. Comput. Sci. 52(3), 205–237 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    De Nicola, R., Hennessy, M.: Testing equivalences for processes. Theoretical Computer Science 34(1-2), 83–133 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jeffrey, A., Rathke, J.: Java Jr: Fully abstract trace semantics for a core Java language. In: Sagiv, M. (ed.) ESOP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3444, pp. 423–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Morris, J.H.: Lambda-Calculus Models of Programming Languages. PhD thesis, MIT (December 1968)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Abadi, M., Fournet, C.: Access control based on execution history. In: Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium Conference (2003)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Boebert, W.E., Kain, R.Y.: A practical alternative to hierarchical integrity policies. In: Proceedings of the Eighth National Computer Security Conference (1985)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Walker, K.M., Sterne, D.F., Badger, M.L., Petkac, M.J., Shermann, D.L., Oostendorp, K.A.: Confining root programs with Domain and Type Enforcement (DTE). In: Proceedings of the Sixth USENIX UNIX Security Symposium (1996)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Loscocco, P.A., Smalley, S.D.: Meeting critical security objectives with Security-Enhanced Linux. In: Proceedings of the 2001 Ottawa Linux Symposium (2001)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Sangiorgi, D.: Expressing Mobility in Process Algebras: First Order and Higher Order Paradigms. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh (1993)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Milner, R.: Communication and concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River (1989)MATHGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Landin, P.J.: The mechanical evaluation of expressions. Computer Journal 6(4), 308–320 (1964)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Morrisett, J.G., Jones, S.L.P. (eds.): Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2006, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, January 11-13, 2006. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Radha Jagadeesan
    • 1
  • Corin Pitcher
    • 1
  • James Riely
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ComputingDePaul UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations