Advertisement

Automated Cross-Language Integration Based on Formal Model of Components

Conference paper
  • 85 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12271)

Abstract

The paper presents the research aimed at development of a new method for integration of software components written in different languages, which allows omitting glue code manual writing. The necessity to write additional project-specific linking logic requires that programmers have at least good knowledge of two languages. Therefore, it is rather difficult to reuse well-tested libraries and other software components written in other languages in spite of the benefits, which they can offer. The paper analyzes advantages and disadvantages of the previously developed methods and tools intended for linking software components. The proposed method is based on the RPC approach, augmented with the LibSL language, previously created by the authors of the research that is designed to describe the software components external interface. The description of the external interface allows generating all the glue code automatically.

Based on the offered method, the tool that supports C, Java, Kotlin, Go, and JavaScript was developed. Applicability and efficiency of the proposed solution was tested by creation of the LibSL descriptions and stubs generation for a set of real-world libraries, such as a Z3 SMT solver.

Keywords

Cross-language integration Language interoperability Library models 

References

  1. 1.
    Adler, D.: Dynamic language bindings for C libraries with emphasis on their application to R. Ph.D. thesis, Niedersächsische Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aleksyuk, A.O., Itsykson, V.M.: Semantics-driven migration of Java programs: a practical application. Autom. Control Comput. Sci. 52(7), 581–588 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beazley, D.M., et al.: Swig: an easy to use tool for integrating scripting languages with C and C++. In: TCL/TK Workshop, vol. 43 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonnal, R.J.P., et al.: Sharing programming resources between bio* projects. In: Anisimova, M. (ed.) Evolutionary Genomics. MMB, vol. 1910, pp. 747–766. Springer, New York (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9074-0_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grechanik, M., Batory, D., Perry, D.E.: Design of large-scale polylingual systems. In: Proceedings of 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 357–366 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grimmer, M., Schatz, R., Seaton, C., Würthinger, T., Luján, M., Mössenböck, H.: Cross-language interoperability in a multi-language runtime. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 40(2), 8:1–8:43 (2018). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3201898
  7. 7.
    Henning, M.: The rise and fall of CORBA. Commun. ACM 51(8), 52–57 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1378704.1378718
  8. 8.
    Ierusalimschy, R., de Figueiredo, L.H., Celes, W.: The evolution of Lua. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on History of Programming Languages, pp. 2-1 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Itsykson, V.M.: Formalism and language tools for specification of the semantics of software libraries. Autom. Control Comput. Sci. 51(7), 531–538 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3103/S0146411617070100
  10. 10.
    Itsykson, V.: LibSL: language for specification of software libraries. Softw. Eng. 9, 209–220 (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaplan, A., Ridgway, J., Wileden, J.C.: Why IDLs are not ideal. In: Proceedings Ninth International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, pp. 2–7 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krikhaar, R., Postma, A., Sellink, A., Stroucken, M., Verhoef, C.: A two-phase process for software architecture improvement. In: Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance - 1999 (ICSM 1999). Software Maintenance for Business Change (Cat. No.99CB36360), pp. 371–380 (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, D., Srisa-an, W.: Quarantine: a framework to mitigate memory errors in JNI applications. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Programming in Java, PPPJ 2011, pp. 1–10. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/2093157.2093159
  14. 14.
    Nambiar, M.K., Samudrala, S., Narayanan, S.: Experiences with UNIX IPC for low latency messaging solutions. In: International CMG Conference (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parr, T.J.: Enforcing strict model-view separation in template engines. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web. WWW 2004, pp. 224–233. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2004). https://doi.org/10.1145/988672.988703
  16. 16.
    Slee, M., Agarwal, A., Kwiatkowski, M.: Thrift: scalable cross-language services implementation. Facebook White Paper 5(8) (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Snyder, R.D.: A cross-language remote procedure call framework. In: 18th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, p. 3822 (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tan, G.: JNI Light: An Operational Model for the Core JNI. In: Ueda, K. (ed.) APLAS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6461, pp. 114–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17164-2_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.JetBrains Research, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic UniversitySaint PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations