Advertisement

Automatic verification of transactions on an object-oriented database

  • David Spelt
  • Herman Balsters
Transactions
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1369)

Abstract

In the context of the object-oriented data model, a compiletime approach is given that provides for a significant reduction of the amount of run-time transaction overhead due to integrity constraint checking. The higher-order logic Isabelle theorem prover is used to automatically prove which constraints might, or might not be violated by a given transaction in a manner analogous to the one used by Sheard and Stemple (1989) for the relational data model. A prototype transaction verification tool has been implemented, which automates the semantic mappings and generates proof goals for Isabelle. Test results are discussed to illustrate the effectiveness of our approach.

Keywords

object-oriented databases transaction semantics transaction verification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Piero Fraternali & Stefano Paraboschi, “A Review of Repairing Techniques for Integrity Maintenance,” in Proceedings First International Workshop on Rules in Database Systems, Edinburgh, Scotland, 30 August–1 September, 1993, Norman W. Paton & M. Howard Williams, eds., Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg-Berlin, 1994, 333–346.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Tim Sheard & David Stemple, “Automatic verification of database transaction safety,” ACM Trans. Database Syst. 14 (Sept., 1989), 322–368.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Veronique Benzaken & Doucet, “Themis: a database programming language with integrity constraints,” in Database programming languages (DBPL-4): Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Database Programming Languages, Object Models and languages, Springer-Verlag, 1994, 243–262.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Veronique Benzaken & Doucet, “Themis: a Database Programming Language Handling Integrity Constraints,” VLDB Journal 4 (1995).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Veronique Benzaken & Xavier Schaefer, “Ensuring efficiently the integrity of a persistent object store via abstract interpretation,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Persistent Object Systems, Morgan Kaufmann, May, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    H. Balsters, R. A. de By & R. Zicari, “Typed sets as a basis for object-oriented database schemas,” in ECOOP 1993 Kaiserslautern, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    René Bal, Herman Balsters, Rolf A. de By, Alexander Bosschaart, Jan Flokstra, Maurice van Keulen, Jacek Skowronek & Bart Termorshuizen, “The TM Manual; version 2.0, revision e,” Universiteit Twente, Technical report IMPRESS / UT-TECH-T79-001-R2, Enschede, The Netherlands, June 1995.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Luca Cardelli, “A semantics of multiple inheritance,” Inf. and Comput. 76 (1988),138–164.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Herman Balsters & Chris C. de Vreeze, “A semantics of object-oriented sets,” in The Third International Workshop on Database Programming Languages: Bulk Types & Persistent Data (DBPL-3), Aug. 27-30, 1991, Nafplion, Greece, Paris Kanellakis & Joachim W. Schmidt, eds., Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, 1991, 201–217.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. G. G. Cattell, The Object Database Standard: ODMG-93, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Lawrence C. Paulson, Isabelle: A Generic Theorem Prover, Lecture Notes in Computer Science #828, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Alexander Borgida, John Mylopoulos & Joachim W. Schmidt, Database Programming by Formal Refinement of Conceptual Designs, IEEE Data Engineering, Sept., 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Luca Cardelli, “Amber,” Combinators and Functional Programming, New York-Heidelberg-Berlin (1986).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    G. Castagna, “Object-Oriented Programming: A Unified Foundation,” Progress in Theoretical Computer Science (1996,).Google Scholar
  15. [15).
    Peter Buneman & Atsushi Ohori, “A Type System that Reconciles Classes and Extents,” in The Third International Workshop on Database Programming Languages: Bulk Types & Persistent Data (DBPL-3), Aug. 27–30, 1991, Nafplion, Greece, Paris Kanellakis & Joachim W. Schmidt, eds., Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, 1991, 191–202.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Man Hon Wong & Divyakant Agrawal, “Context-specific synchronization for atomic data types in object, oriented databases,” TCS (1995).Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    William E. Weilil, “The Impact of Recovery on Concurrency Control,” Journal of Computer and System Sciences (1993).Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    David Stemple, Subhasish Mazumdar & Tim Sheard, “On the modes and meaning of feedback to transaction designers,” in Proceedings of ACM-SIGMOD 1987 International Conference on Management of Data, San Francisco, CA, May 27–29, 1987, Umeshwar Dayal & Irv Traiger, eds., ACM Press, New York, NY, 1987, 374–386, (also appeared as ACM SIGMOD Record 16, 3, Dec., 1987).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Spelt
    • 1
  • Herman Balsters
  1. 1.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations