A hands-on look at Java mobile agents

Kiniry, Joseph R.; Zimmerman, Daniel M.

doi:10.1109/4236.612210

Cited by 148 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…follows from (14) and (15). Combining now (17), (18) and (19) with the expressions found for p 0,0,1 , p 1,0,1 * and p 0,1,1 (in (8), (16) and (45), respectively), we find…”

Section: The Expected Number Of Forwardersmentioning

confidence: 69%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Forwarders vs. centralized server

Alouf¹,

Huet²,

Nain³

2002

Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGMETRICS International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems - SIGMETRICS '

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper evaluates and compares the performance of two approaches for locating an agent (e.g. a code) in a mobile agent environment. The first approach dynamically creates a chain of forwarders to locate a moving agent whereas the second one relies on a centralized server to perform this task. Based on a Markov chain analysis, we compute the performance of each scheme (time to reach an agent, number of forwarders) and compare them first with simulations and second with experimental results obtained by using ProActive, a Java library. Depending on the system parameters we identify the best scheme and observe that within a LAN the server yields the best performance whereas the forwarders yield the best performance within a MAN.

show abstract

“…follows from (14) and (15). Combining now (17), (18) and (19) with the expressions found for p 0,0,1 , p 1,0,1 * and p 0,1,1 (in (8), (16) and (45), respectively), we find…”

Section: The Expected Number Of Forwardersmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…Mobility can be implemented as a service provided by an operating system [22]; however this severely limits its usefulness in a heterogeneous environment such as the Internet. Another solution is to use a library which provides an application with all of the necessary features [1,3,12,15,19,24,28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forwarders vs. centralized server

Alouf¹,

Huet²,

Nain³

2002

Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGMETRICS International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems - SIGMETRICS '

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The list of features and the overall functionality of each platform also play a very important role. To get a complete picture about the best platforms the interested reader should still take a look to the programming support of each system and the comparison of features that have been presented elsewhere [3][4][5][6][7]. In this paper, we were only evaluating the performance and the robustness of James and to see how it compares with the other similar Java-based mobile agent systems.…”

Section: Final Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[3] is presented an extensive comparison between the features of Voyager, Odyssey, Aglets and Concordia. Kiniry and Zimmerman [4] have presented a direct comparison between Odyssey, Aglets and Voyager. In Ref.…”

Section: Brief Description Of the Platformsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the performance of mobile agent systems: a study of benchmarking

Silva

Soares

Martins

et al. 2000

Computer Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past few years there has been an enthusiastic interest in mobile agent technology and several platforms have been developed. Some of them have only been used for research purposes while others have been deployed as commercial products. The community is now looking for applications where these platforms can be effectively used. Some comparisons about the functionality of some mobile agent systems have been presented in the literature. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no reported study that compares the real performance of the platforms.In this paper, we present the first results of an experimental study that compares the performance of eight Java-based Mobile Agent systems: Aglets, Concordia, Voyager, Odyssey, Jumping Beans, Grasshopper, Swarm and James. This study presents some insights about the performance and the robustness of each platform. ᭧

show abstract

“…Mobile agents are autonomous objects carrying their state and code that proactively move across the network. Many new systems have been developed to support mobile agents [17,31,14]. Agent mobility requires the migration of both code and state of the agent at the same time and they can move proactively performing tasks on behalf of users.…”

Section: Overview Of Xml and Logical Mobilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing incremental code migration with XML

Emmerich

Mascolo

Finkelsteiin

2000

Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering - ICSE '00

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We demonstrate how XML and related technologies can be used for code mobility at any granularity, thus overcoming the restrictions of existing approaches. By not fixing a particular granularity for mobile code, we enable complete programs as well as individual lines of code to be sent across the network. We define the concept of incremental code mobility as the ability to migrate and add, remove, or replace code fragments (i.e., increments) in a remote program. The combination of fine-grained and incremental migration achieves a previously unavailable degree of flexibility. We examine the application of incremental and fine-grained code migration to a variety of domains, including user interface management, application management on mobile thin clients, for example PDAs, and management of distributed documents.

show abstract

A hands-on look at Java mobile agents

Cited by 148 publications

References 0 publications

Forwarders vs. centralized server

Forwarders vs. centralized server

Comparing the performance of mobile agent systems: a study of benchmarking

Implementing incremental code migration with XML

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About