Advertisement

Read-Only Execution for Dynamic Languages

  • Jean-Baptiste Arnaud
  • Marcus Denker
  • Stéphane Ducasse
  • Damien Pollet
  • Alexandre Bergel
  • Mathieu Suen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6141)

Abstract

Supporting read-only and side effect free execution has been the focus of a large body of work in the area of statically typed programming languages. Read-onlyness in dynamically typed languages is difficult to achieve because of the absence of a type checking phase and the support of an open-world assumption in which code can be constantly added and modified. To address this issue, we propose Dynamic Read-Only references (DRO) that provide a view on an object where this object and its object graph are protected from modification. The read-only view dynamically propagates to aggregated objects, without changing the object graph itself; it acts as a read-only view of complex data structures, without making them read-only globally. We implement dynamic read-only references by using smart object proxies that lazily propagate the read-only view, following the object graph and driven by control flow and applied them to realize side-effect free assertions.

Keywords

Virtual Machine Object Graph Instance Variable Method Body Aggregate Object 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Meyer, B.: Applying design by contract. IEEE Computer (Special Issue on Inheritance & Classification) 25(10), 40–52 (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Finifter, M., Mettler, A., Sastry, N., Wagner, D.: Verifiable functional purity in java. In: Proceedings of CCS’08, pp. 27–31 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Donald, G., James, N.: Dynamic ownership in a dynamic language. In: Costanza, P., Hirschfeld, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2007 Symposium on Dynamic Languages, DLS 2007, pp. 41–52. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hogg, J.: Islands: aliasing protection in object-oriented languages. In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA’91), pp. 271–285 (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Almeida, P.S.: Balloon types: Controlling sharing of state in data types. In: Aksit, M., Matsuoka, S. (eds.) ECOOP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1241, pp. 32–59. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clarke, D.G., Potter, J.M., Noble, J.: Ownership types for flexible alias protection. In: Proceedings OOPSLA ’98, pp. 48–64. ACM Press, New York (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boyland, J., Noble, J., Retert, W.: Capabilities for sharing, a generalisation of uniqueness and read-only. In: Knudsen, J.L. (ed.) ECOOP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2072, p. 2. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Noble, J., Clarke, D., Potter, J.: Object ownership for dynamic alias protection. In: Proceedings TOOLS ’99, November 1999, pp. 176–187 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hakonen, H., Leppänen, V., Raita, T., Salakoski, T., Teuhola, J.: Improving object integrity and preventing side effects via deeply immutable references. In: Fenno-Ugric Symposium on Software Technology, pp. 139–150 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller, M.S., Shapiro, J.S.: Paradigm regained: Abstraction mechanisms for access control. In: Proceedings of the Eigth Asian Computing Science Conference, pp. 224–242 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fong, P.W.L., Zhang, C.: Capabilities as alias control: Secure cooperation in dynamically extensible systems. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, University of Regina (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller, M.S.: Robust Composition: Towards a Unified Approach to Access Control and Concurrency Control. PhD thesis, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA (May 2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Birka, A., Ernst, M.D.: A practical type system and language for reference immutability. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA’2004, pp. 35–49 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schärli, N., Ducasse, S., Nierstrasz, O., Wuyts, R.: Composable encapsulation policies. In: Odersky, M. (ed.) ECOOP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3086, pp. 26–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schärli, N., Black, A.P., Ducasse, S.: Object-oriented encapsulation for dynamically typed languages. In: Proceedings of 18th International Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA’04), October 2004, pp. 130–149 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bergel, A., Ducasse, S., Nierstrasz, O., Wuyts, R.: Stateful traits and their formalization. Journal of Computer Languages, Systems and Structures 34(2-3), 83–108 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Friedman, D.P., Wand, M.: Reification: Reflection without metaphysics. In: LFP ’84: Proceedings of the 1984 ACM Symposium on LISP and functional programming, pp. 348–355. ACM, New York (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lienhard, A.: Dynamic Object Flow Analysis. Phd thesis, University of Bern (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haupt, M., Schippers, H.: A machine model for aspect-oriented programming. In: Ernst, E. (ed.) ECOOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4609, pp. 501–524. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pascoe, G.A.: Encapsulators: A new software paradigm in Smalltalk-80. In: Proceedings OOPSLA ’86, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, November 1986, vol. 21, pp. 341–346 (1986)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Flatt, M., Krishnamurthi, S., Felleisen, M.: A programmer’s reduction semantics for classes and mixins. Technical Report TR 97-293, Rice University (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Denker, M., Ducasse, S., Tanter, É.: Runtime bytecode transformation for Smalltalk. Journal of Computer Languages, Systems and Structures 32(2-3), 125–139 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ducasse, S.: Evaluating message passing control techniques in Smalltalk. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming (JOOP) 12(6), 39–44 (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hirschfeld, R., Costanza, P., Nierstrasz, O.: Context-oriented programming. Journal of Object Technology 7(3) (March 2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Denker, M., Suen, M., Ducasse, S.: The meta in meta-object architectures. In: Proceedings of TOOLS EUROPE 2008. LNBIP, vol. 11, pp. 218–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ierusalimschy, R., de la Rocque Rodriguez, N.: Side-effect free functions in object-oriented languages. Computer Languages 3/4(21), 129–146 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Costanza, P., Hirschfeld, R.: Language constructs for context-oriented programming: An overview of ContextL. In: Proceedings of the Dynamic Languages Symposium (DLS) ’05, co-organized with OOPSLA’05, October 2005, pp. 1–10. ACM, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Warth, A., Kay, A.: Worlds: Controlling the scope of side effects. Technical Report RN-2008-001, Viewpoints Research (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tanter, É.: Contextual values. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Dynamic Languages Symposium (DLS 2008), Paphos, Cyprus, July 2008. ACM Press, New York (to appear, 2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hanenberg, S., Hirschfeld, R., Unland, R.: Morphing aspects: incompletely woven aspects and continuous weaving. In: AOSD ’04: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Aspect-oriented software development, pp. 46–55. ACM, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schippers, H., Janssens, D., Haupt, M., Hirschfeld, R.: Delegation-based semantics for modularizing crosscutting concerns. In: OOPSLA ’08: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications, pp. 525–542. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Flatt, M., Krishnamurthi, S., Felleisen, M.: Classes and mixins. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 171–183. ACM Press, New York (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Felleisen, M., Hieb, R.: The revised report on the syntactic theories of sequential control and state. Theor. Comput. Sci. 103(2), 235–271 (1992)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Baptiste Arnaud
    • 1
  • Marcus Denker
    • 1
  • Stéphane Ducasse
    • 1
  • Damien Pollet
    • 1
  • Alexandre Bergel
    • 2
  • Mathieu Suen
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIA Lille Nord Europe - CNRS UMR 8022University of Lille (USTL) 
  2. 2.PLEIAD Lab, Department of Computer Science (DCC)University of ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations