Advertisement

A Theory of Design-by-Contract for Distributed Multiparty Interactions

  • Laura Bocchi
  • Kohei Honda
  • Emilio Tuosto
  • Nobuko Yoshida
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6269)

Abstract

Design by Contract (DbC) promotes reliable software development through elaboration of type signatures for sequential programs with logical predicates. This paper presents an assertion method, based on the π-calculus with full recursion, which generalises the notion of DbC to multiparty distributed interactions to enable effective specification and verification of distributed multiparty protocols. Centring on global assertions and their projections onto endpoint assertions, our method allows clear specifications for typed sessions, constraining the content of the exchanged messages, the choice of sub-conversations to follow, and invariants on recursions. The paper presents key theoretical foundations of this framework, including a sound and relatively complete compositional proof system for verifying processes against assertions.

Keywords

Logical Predicate Java Modeling Language Conditional Simulation Session Type Validation Rule 
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.
    Acciai, L., Borale, M.: A type system for client progress in a service-oriented calculus. In: Degano, P., De Nicola, R., Meseguer, J. (eds.) Concurrency, Graphs and Models. LNCS, vol. 5065, pp. 625–641. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger, M., Honda, K., Yoshida, N.: Completeness and logical full abstraction for modal logics for the typed π-calculus. In: Aceto, L., Damgård, I., Goldberg, L.A., Halldórsson, M.M., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Walukiewicz, I. (eds.) ICALP 2008, Part II. LNCS, vol. 5126, pp. 99–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bettini, L., et al.: Global Progress in Dynamically Interfered Multiparty Sessions. In: van Breugel, F., Chechik, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5201, pp. 418–433. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhargavan, K., Corin, R., Deniélou, P.M., Fournet, C., Leifer, J.: Cryptographic protocol synthesis and verification for multiparty sessions. In: CSF, pp. 124–140 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhargavan, K., Fournet, C., Gordon, A.D.: Modular verification of security protocol code by typing. In: POPL, pp. 445–456 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonelli, E., Compagnoni, A., Gunter, E.: Correspondence assertions for process synchronization in concurrent communications. JFC 15(2), 219–247 (2005)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bravetti, M., Zavattaro, G.: A foundational theory of contracts for multi-party service composition. Fundamenta Informaticae XX, 1–28 (2008)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buscemi, M., Montanari, U.: CC-Pi: A constraint-based language for specifying service level agreements. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 18–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caires, L., Vieira, H.T.: Conversation types. In: Castagna, G. (ed.) ESOP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5502, pp. 285–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Castagna, G., Padovani, L.: Contracts for mobile processes. In: Bravetti, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) CONCUR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5710, pp. 211–228. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dam, M.: Proof systems for pi-calculus logics. In: Logic for Concurrency and Synchronisation. Trends in Logic, Studia Logica Library, pp. 145–212. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Nicola, R., et al.: A Basic Calculus for Modelling Service Level Agreements. In: Coordination. LNCS, vol. 3454, pp. 33–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Floyd, R.W.: Assigning meaning to programs. In: Proc. Symp. in Applied Mathematics, vol. 19 (1967)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frankel, D.S.: Model Driven Architecture: Applying MDA to Enterprise Computing. Wiley, Chichester (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freeman, T., Pfenning, F.: Refinement types for ml. SIGPLAN Not. 26(6), 268–277 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guttman, J.D., et al.: Trust management in strand spaces: A rely-guarantee method. In: Schmidt, D. (ed.) ESOP 2004. LNCS, vol. 2986, pp. 325–339. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hennessy, M., Milner, R.: Algebraic laws for non-determinism and concurrency. JACM 32(1) (1985)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoare, T.: An axiomatic basis of computer programming. CACM 12 (1969)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Honda, K., Vasconcelos, V.T., Kubo, M.: Language primitives and type disciplines for structured communication-based programming. In: Hankin, C. (ed.) ESOP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1381, pp. 22–138. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Honda, K., Yoshida, N., Carbone, M.: Multiparty asynchronous session types. In: POPL, pp. 273–284. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    The Java Modeling Language (JML) Home PageGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jones, C.B.: Specification and design of (parallel) programs. In: IFIP Congress, pp. 321–332 (1983)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leino, K.R.M.: Verifying object-oriented software: Lessons and challenges. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, p. 2. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mendelson, E.: Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Wadsworth Inc., Bermont (1987)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meyer, B.: Applying “Design by Contract”. Computer 25(10), 40–51 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meyer, B.: Object-Oriented Software Construction, ch. 31. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1997)MATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nienaltowski, P., Meyer, B., Ostroff, J.S.: Contracts for concurrency. Form. Asp. Comput. 21(4), 305–318 (2009)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    OMG: Object Constraint Language Version 2.0 (May 2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peyton Jones, S., et al.: Composing contracts: an adventure in financial engineering. In: ICFP, pp. 281–292. ACM, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pierce, B.C.: Types and Programming Languages. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    SAVARA JBoss Project webpage, http://www.jboss.org/savara
  33. 33.
    Vallecillo, A., Vasconcelos, V.T., Ravara, A.: Typing the behavior of objects and components using session types. Fundamenta Informaticæ 73(4), 583–598 (2006)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Xi, H., Pfenning, F.: Dependent types in practical programming. In: POPL, pp. 214–227. ACM, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Xu, D., Peyton Jones, S.: Static contract checking for Haskell. In: POPL, pp. 41–52. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Bocchi
    • 1
  • Kohei Honda
    • 2
  • Emilio Tuosto
    • 1
  • Nobuko Yoshida
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Leicester 
  2. 2.Queen Mary, University of London 
  3. 3.Imperial College London 

Personalised recommendations