A comparison of two notations for process communication

In this paper we shall discuss concurrency in programming languages, with a view towards designing a process-oriented language which, by its inherent parallelism, is well suited to exploit the forthcoming generation of distributed processor networks.We shall start by discussing the traditional approach towards managing concurrency, with 'monitors' co-ordinating the interactions of 'processes', and shall demonstrate that this approach actually degrades concurrency by imposing sequentiality during interactions because it is based on the premise of co-ordinating secure access to shared resources. As a tool for interprocess communication it is felt that the 'monitor' is too far removed from the abstract nature of the problem, and so, as a purely engineering solution, it imposes too broad and too prolonged an exclusion to be acceptable in general.Instead we turn to a simpler, and ultimately more powerful notion of 'message passing' between parallel processes. We shall show how, if the message system is polymorphic, any data value, however large it is, can pass freely between any pair of processes. By making the processes themselves values in the language we shall discover that message networks can come into b e i i dynamically, and tailor themselves to their applications as and when necessary by 'shortcircuiting' extensive communications paths. We shall also see how, if the message system is inherently asynchronous, the degree of the parallelism in a system can be enhanced, not degraded, as more and elaborate communications paths develop, the only sequentiality in the system as a whole being imposed by synchronizing processes, not the message passing system itself.After discussing the various built-in system facilities that permit processes to dynamically find out about and study one another, thus permitting processes to set up and thereafter supervise whole subsystems, we shall round off by discussing the advantages of introducing the machines themselves into the language, making it possible for processes to become aware of, and then 'migrate' within, the topological structure of a multi-processor distributed network, moving closer to their application, or just to a less-loaded processor, as the need arises.To conclude we shall contrast this new-style process-oriented language with various existing programming languages which have experimented with concurrency, either implicitly or explicitly, in order to see if, and if so how, this new style is any simpler and more powerful than its precursors.

Section: Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a language for concurrent processes

Harland

1985

“…T h e solution to the dining philosophers problem given by Brinch Hansen can be task philosopher (1 . 1. As in the CSP solution the input of a 'first' value to an empty task element is handled separately from subsequent inputs, but in Ada the inner loop which handles subsequent puts and gets is terminated by an exit statement, rather than a Boolean prefix on each guarded alternative.…”

Section: A7 the Dining Philosophers Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study of task communication in ada

Welsh

Lister

1981

Self Cite

A previous paper compared the mechanisms for process communication in Hoare's communicating sequential processes and in Brinch Hansen's distributed processes, by both qualitative and quantitative analyses. This paper extends these analyses to the corresponding features for communication between tasks in Ada. The similarity between Ada's features and Hoare's proposals is confirmed, but some limitations on non‐determinism in Ada are noted.

A communicating sequential process language and implementation

Roper

Barter

1981

The design of a communicating sequential process language is presented, featuring a parallel command, communication by message passing and the use of the guarded command as a means of introducing and controlling non‐determinism. The language described here incorporates a number of new proposals regarding communications between sequential processes. The principal proposal is that messages are to be selected for reception by a receiving process solely on the basis of their type and arrival order within type; in particular, the identity of the sending process does not influence message reception. This results in a greater degree of parallelism and non‐determinism, which is useful to both the programmer and the language implementor. Also a hierarchichal composition regime is proposed, which gives communications significance to the organization of subprocess hierarchies; this promotes an independence of specification of program components through information hiding properties. The language implementation is described, and several aspects are of particular interest: the design of a process scheduler in a non‐deterministic situation leads to some interesting optimizations, as does the design of a message handler in the case where the communicating processes can access the same memory. Finally, example programs are given to illustrate some of the novel features of the language.