Advertisement

Distributed CCS

  • Padmanabhan Krishnan
Selected Presentations
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 527)

Abstract

In this paper we describe a technique to extend a process language such as CCS which does not model many aspects of distributed computation to one which does. The idea is to use a concept of location which represents a virtual node. Processes at different locations can evolve independently. Furthermore, communication between processes at different locations occurs via explicit message passing. We extend CCS with locations and message passing primitives and present its operational semantics. We show that the equivalences induced by the new semantics and its properties are similar to the equivalences in CCS. We also show how the semantics of configuration and routing can be handled.

Keywords

Processing Element Message Passing Operational Semantic Virtual Node Physical Network 
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. [BB89]
    G. Berry and G. Boudol. The Chemical Abstract Machine. Technical Report 1133, INRIA-Sophia Antipolis, December 1989.Google Scholar
  2. [BCM88]
    J. P. Banatre, A. Coutant, and D. Metayer. A Parallel Machine for Multiset Transformation and its Programming Style. Future Generation Computer Systems, 4:133–144, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. [BN81]
    A.D. Birrell and B.J. Nelson. Implementing Remote Procedure Calls. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 2(4):39–59, February 1981.Google Scholar
  4. [CG83]
    K. L. Clark and S Gregory. PARLOG:A Parallel Logic Programming Language. Technical Report 5, Imperial College, May 1983.Google Scholar
  5. [CH89]
    I. Castellani and M. Hennessy. Distributed Bisimulations. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 36(4):887–911, October 1989.Google Scholar
  6. [CM87]
    K. M. Chandy and J. Misra. Parallelsim and Programming: A Perspective. In Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, LNCS 287, pages 173–194. Springer Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. [DDM88]
    P. Degano, R. DeNicola, and U. Montanari. A Distributed Operational Semantics for CCS Based on Condition/Event Systems. Acta Informatica, 26:59–91, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. [DH84]
    R. DeNicola and M. C. B. Hennessy. Testing Equivalences for Processes. Theoretical Computer Science, 34:83–133, 1984.Google Scholar
  9. [Gel85]
    D. Gelernter. Generative Communication in Linda. ACM Transactions on Programming Language and Systems, 7(1):80–112, Jan 1985.Google Scholar
  10. [Hud86]
    P. Hudak. Parafunctional Programming. IEEE Computer, 19(8):60–71, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. [INM88]
    INMOS Ltd. occam-2 Reference Manual. Prentice Hall, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. [KHCB91]
    A. Kiehn, M. Hennessy, I. Castellani, and G. Boudol. Observing Localities. In Workshop on Concurrency and Compositionality: Goslar, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. [LS88]
    B. Liskov and L. Shrira. Promises: Linguistic Support for Efficient Asynchronous Procedure Calls in Distributed Systems. SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 260–267, 1988.Google Scholar
  14. [Mar89]
    S. T. March, editor. ACM Computing Surveys, volume 21,3. ACM, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. [Mil80]
    R. Milner. A Calculus of Communicating Systems. Lecture Notes on Computer Science Vol. 92. Springer Verlag, 1980.Google Scholar
  16. [Par81]
    D. Park. Concurrency and Automata on Infinite Sequences. In Proceedings of the 5th GI Conference, LNCS-104. Springer Verlag, 1981.Google Scholar
  17. [Plo81]
    G. D. Plotkin. A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, 1981.Google Scholar
  18. [Rus78]
    R. Russell. The CRAY-1 Computer System. CACM, January 1978.Google Scholar
  19. [TBH82]
    P. Treleaven, D. Brownbridge, and R. Hopkins. Data Driven and Demand Driven Computer Architectures. ACM Computing Surveys, 14(1), 1982.Google Scholar
  20. [vGV87]
    R. J. van Glabbeek and F. W. Vaandrager. Petri Net Models for Algebraic Theories of Concurrency. In J. W. deBakker, A. J. Nijman, and P. C. Treleaven, editors, PARLE-II, LNCS 259. Springer Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Padmanabhan Krishnan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations