SCOOP – Concurrency Made Easy

  • Volkan Arslan
  • Patrick Eugster
  • Piotr Nienaltowski
  • Sebastien Vaucouleur
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4028)


The metaphor of objects as entities encompassing both logic and state, simplifying the design and development of particularly large-scale applications, is well established in the industry. However, large applications are rarely monolithic components that carry out a single sequential task; most applications are composed of many components running in parallel. Yet, the vast majority of such applications are built in a rather ad-hoc manner, typically by making use of threading libraries and explicit synchronization through low-level mechanisms such as semaphores, locks, or monitors layered on top of objects.

The Simple Concurrent Object-Oriented Programming (SCOOP) model strives for a higher-level abstraction for concurrency, naturally woven into “traditional” object-oriented constructs. Thanks to the full support for contracts and other object-oriented mechanisms and techniques — inheritance, polymorphism, dynamic binding, genericity, and agents — SCOOP offers the programmer a simple yet powerful framework for efficient development of concurrent systems.

This paper presents a survey of SCOOP, including (1) the foundations of the SCOOP paradigm, its computation and synchronization models (focusing on simplicity), and our more recent developments. These are (2) an extended type system for eliminating synchronization defects (improving safety), (3) support for transactional semantics for subcomputations (enforcing atomicity), and (4) an event library for programming real-time concurrent tasks (allowing for predictability).


Concurrent Programming Typing Rule Atomic Feature Separate Object Aperiodic Task 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Meyer, B.: Systematic Concurrent Object-Oriented Programming. Communications of the ACM 36, 56–80 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meyer, B.: Object-Oriented Software Construction, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1997)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Butler, M., Hoare, C., Ferreira, C.: A Trace Semantics for Long-Running Transactions. In: 25 Years Communicating Sequential Processes, pp. 133–150 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arslan, V., Nienaltowski, P., Arnout, K.: Event Library: An Object-Oriented Library for Event-Driven Design. In: Böszörményi, L., Schojer, P. (eds.) JMLC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2789, pp. 174–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eugster, P., Felber, P., Guerraoui, R., Kermarrec, A.M.: The Many Faces of Publish/Subscribe. ACM Computing Surveys 35, 114–131 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burdy, L., Cheon, Y., Cok, D., Ernst, M., Kiniry, J., Leavens, G., Leino, K.R.M., Poll, E.: An Overview of JML Tools and Applications. In: Eighth International Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems (FMICS 2003) (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barnett, M., M. Leino, K.R., Schulte, W.: The Spec# Programming System: An Overview. In: Barthe, G., Burdy, L., Huisman, M., Lanet, J.-L., Muntean, T. (eds.) CASSIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3362, pp. 49–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nienaltowski, P., Arslan, V., Meyer, B.: Concurrent object-oriented programming on NET. IEE Proceedings - Software 150, 308–314 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caromel, D.: Towards a Method of Object-Oriented Concurrent Programming. Communications of the ACM 36, 90–102 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dietl, W., Müller, P., Poetzsch-Heffter, A.: A Type System for Checking Applet Isolation in Java Card. In: Barthe, G., Burdy, L., Huisman, M., Lanet, J.-L., Muntean, T. (eds.) CASSIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3362, pp. 129–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ECMA: Eiffel Analysis, Design and Programming Language. ECMA Standard 367 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fich, F.E., Ruppert, E.: Hundreds of Impossibility Results for Distributed Computing. Distributed Computing 16, 121–163 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weikum, G., Vossen, G.: Transactional Information Systems: Theory, Algorithms, and the Practice of Concurrency Control and Recovery. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moss, J.E.B.: Nested Transactions: an Approach to Reliable Distributed Computing. Technical Report 260, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Computer Science (1981)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vaucouleur, S., Eugster, P.: Atomic Features. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Synchronization in Concurrent Object-Oriented Languages (SCOOL), OOPSLA (October 2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arslan, V., Eugster, P.: Modeling Embedded Real-time Applications with Objects and Events. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Object-Oriented Modelling of Embedded Real-Time Systems (OMER-3) (to appear, 2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brega, R.: A Combination of System Software Techniques Aimed at Raising the Runtime-Safety of Complex Mechatronic Applications. PhD thesis, ETH Zurich, Switzerland (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Volkan Arslan
    • 1
  • Patrick Eugster
    • 1
  • Piotr Nienaltowski
    • 1
  • Sebastien Vaucouleur
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of Software Engineering Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations