On proving communication closedness of distributed layers

  • Rob Gerth
  • Liuba Shrira
Session 5 Distributed Computing
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 241)


The notion of communication closed layer has been introduced as a way to define structured composition of distributed systems. An interesting question is how to verify the closedness of a layer. We formulate a proof rule proving closedness of a distributed layer. The rule is developed as an extension of the Apt, Francez and de Roever proof system for CSP. The extension is proved to be sound and relatively complete.


Proof System Correctness Proof Communication Closedness Proof Rule Component Layer 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [A83]
    APT K.R. (1983), Formal justification of a proof system for Communicating Sequential Processes, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 30, pp. 197–216.Google Scholar
  2. [A85]
    APT K.R. (1984), Proving correctness of CSP programs — a tutorial, in “Control Flow and Data Flow: Concepts of Distributed Programming (M. Broy, Ed.)”, pp. 441–474, NATO ASI Series, Vol. F14, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  3. [AFR80]
    AT, K.R., FRANCEZ, N., DE ROEVER, W.P. (1980), A proof system for communicating sequential processes, ACM Trans. Programm. Lang. Systems 2–3, pp. 359–380.Google Scholar
  4. [deB80]
    DE BAKKER, J.W. (1980), Mathematical Theory of Program Correctness, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. [EF82]
    ELRAD, T., FRANCEZ, N. (1982), Decomposition of distributed programs into communication-closed layers, Science of Computer Programming 2, pp. 155–173.Google Scholar
  6. [FLP80]
    FRANCEZ, N., LEHMANN, D., PNUELI, A. (1980), A linear-history semantics for CSP, in “Proceedings 21st IEEE Confer. Foundat. of Comput. Science”.Google Scholar
  7. [FLP84]
    FRANCEZ, N., LEHMANN, D., PNUELI, A. (1984), A linear-history semantics for languages for distributed programming, Theoretical Computer Science 32, pp. 25–46.Google Scholar
  8. [GR84]
    GERTH, R., DE ROEVER, W.P. (1984), A proof system for concurrent Ada programs, Science of Computer Programming, 4–2, pp. 159–204.Google Scholar
  9. [GR86]
    GERTH, R., DE ROEVER, W.P. (1986), Proving monitors revisited: a first step towards verifying object oriented systems, Fundamenta Informaticae IX-4, North-Holland, to appear.Google Scholar
  10. [H78]
    HOARE, C.A.R. (1987), Communicating Sequential Processes, Communications ACM 21–8, pp. 666–677.Google Scholar
  11. [M85]
    MOITRA, A. (1985), Automatic construction of CSP programs from sequential non-deterministic programs, Science of Computer Programming 5, pp. 277–307.Google Scholar
  12. [SF85]
    SHRIRA, L., FRANCEZ, N. (1985), “A program transformation regarded as a proof transformation”, Report TR-371, Department of Computer Science, Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel.Google Scholar
  13. [SFR83]
    SHRIRA, L., FRANCEZ, N., RODEH, M. (1983), Distributed k-selection: from a sequential to a distributed algorithm, in “Proceedings 2nd ACM Confer. Principles of Distributed Computing”.Google Scholar
  14. [ZRB85]
    ZWIERS, J., DE ROEVER, W.P., VAN EMDE BOAS, P. (1985), Compositionality and Concurrent Networks: Soundness and Completeness of a Proofsystem, in “Proceedings 12th ICALP”, LNCS 194, pp. 509–520, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rob Gerth
    • 1
  • Liuba Shrira
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computing ScienceEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhoventhe Netherlands
  2. 2.Laboratory for Computer ScienceMITCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer Science, TechnionHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations