Advertisement

Erlang-Style Error Recovery for Concurrent Objects with Cooperative Scheduling

  • Georg Göri
  • Einar Broch Johnsen
  • Rudolf Schlatte
  • Volker Stolz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8803)

Abstract

Re-establishing a safe program state after an error occurred is a known problem. Manually written error-recovery code is both more difficult to test and less often executed than the main code paths, hence errors are prevalent in these parts of a program. This paper proposes a failure model for concurrent objects with cooperative scheduling that automatically re-establishes object invariants after program failures, thereby eliminating the need to manually write this problematic code. The proposed model relies on a number of features of actor-based object-oriented languages, such as asynchronous method calls, co-operative scheduling with explicit synchronization points, and communication via future variables. We show that this approach can be used to implement Erlang-style process linking, and implement a supervision tree as a proof-of-concept.

Keywords

Operational Semantic Method Call Software Product Line Current Object Asynchronous Communication 
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.
    Armstrong, J.: Erlang—a survey of the language and its industrial applications. In: Proc. INAP, vol. 96 (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armstrong, J.: Programming Erlang: Software for a Concurrent World. Pragmatic Bookshelf (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bjørk, J., de Boer, F.S., Johnsen, E.B., Schlatte, R., Tapia Tarifa, S.L.: User-defined schedulers for real-time concurrent objects. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering 9(1), 29–43 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Candea, G., Fox, A.: Crash-only software. In: Jones, M.B. (ed.) HotOS, pp. 67–72. USENIX (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caromel, D., Henrio, L.: A Theory of Distributed Objects. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, Z.: Java Card Technology for Smart Cards. Addison-Wesley (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.L.: All About Maude - A High-Performance Logical Framework. LNCS, vol. 4350. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Boer, F.S., Clarke, D., Johnsen, E.B.: A complete guide to the future. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 316–330. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Din, C.C., Dovland, J., Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O.: Observable behavior of distributed systems: Component reasoning for concurrent objects. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 81(3), 227–256 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goetz, B., Peierls, T., Bloch, J., Bowbeer, J., Holmes, D., Lea, D.: Java Concurrency in Practice. Addison-Wesley (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnsen, E.B., Hähnle, R., Schäfer, J., Schlatte, R., Steffen, M.: ABS: A core language for abstract behavioral specification. In: Aichernig, B.K., de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M. (eds.) FMCO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6957, pp. 142–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnsen, E.B., Lanese, I., Zavattaro, G.: Fault in the future. In: De Meuter, W., Roman, G.-C. (eds.) COORDINATION 2011. LNCS, vol. 6721, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O.: An asynchronous communication model for distributed concurrent objects. Software and Systems Modeling 6(1), 35–58 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnsen, E.B., Schlatte, R., Tapia Tarifa, S.L.: Modeling application-level management of virtualized resources in ABS. In: Beckert, B., Damiani, F., de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M. (eds.) FMCO 2011. LNCS, vol. 7542, pp. 89–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lanese, I., Lienhardt, M., Bravetti, M., Johnsen, E.B., Schlatte, R., Stolz, V., Zavattaro, G.: Fault model design space for cooperative concurrency. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8803, pp. 22–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lanese, I., Mezzina, C.A., Schmitt, A., Stefani, J.-B.: Controlling reversibility in higher-order Pi. In: Katoen, J.-P., König, B. (eds.) CONCUR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6901, pp. 297–311. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mostowski, W.: Formal reasoning about non-atomic Java Card methods in dynamic logic. In: Misra, J., Nipkow, T., Sekerinski, E. (eds.) FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4085, pp. 444–459. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nyström, J., Jonsson, B.: Extracting the process structure of Erlang applications. In: Erlang Workshop, Florence, Italy (September 2002), http://www.erlang.org/workshop/nystrom.ps
  19. 19.
    Vinoski, S.: Reliability with Erlang. IEEE Internet Computing 11(6), 79–81 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georg Göri
    • 1
  • Einar Broch Johnsen
    • 2
  • Rudolf Schlatte
    • 2
  • Volker Stolz
    • 2
  1. 1.University of TechnologyGrazAustria
  2. 2.University of OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations