Compliance and Testing Preorders Differ

Bernardi, Giovanni; Hennessy, Matthew

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05032-4_6

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The comparison of ∼svr with the refinement preorder of [CGP09] is complicated by their use of a non-standard LTS. A thorough comparison of the client and server refinements given by the compliance and the must testing can be found in [BH13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mutually Testing Processes

Bernardi¹,

Hennessy²

2015

Logical Methods in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In the standard testing theory of DeNicola-Hennessy one process is considered to be a refinement of another if every test guaranteed by the former is also guaranteed by the latter. In the domain of web services this has been recast, with processes viewed as servers and tests as clients. In this way the standard refinement preorder between servers is determined by their ability to satisfy clients.But in this setting there is also a natural refinement preorder between clients, determined by their ability to be satisfied by servers. In more general settings where there is no distinction between clients and servers, but all processes are peers, there is a further refinement preorder based on the mutual satisfaction of peers.We give a uniform account of these three preorders. In particular we give two characterisations. The first is behavioural, in terms of traces and ready sets. The second, for finite processes, is equational.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mutually Testing Processes

Bernardi¹,

Hennessy²

2015

Logical Methods in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Barbanera and de'Liguoro [2010] take inspiration from the work on refinement for contracts and use it to give a new account of the behavioural semantics of session types, using the notions of compliance and subbehaviour from the work on contracts. Bernardi and Hennessy [2013] show that the refinement relation for servers equals the must testing preorder only if contracts are finite state and that the refinements for clients coincide only in languages as restricted as the finite part of session behaviours of Barbanera and de'Liguoro [2010].…”

Section: Refinement For Contractsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Untitled

2016

CSUR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioural type systems, usually associated to concurrent or distributed computations, encompass concepts such as interfaces, communication protocols, and contracts, in addition to the traditional input/output operations. The behavioural type of a software component specifies its expected patterns of interaction using expressive type languages, so types can be used to determine automatically whether the component interacts correctly with other components. Two related important notions of behavioural types are those of session types and behavioural contracts. This article surveys the main accomplishments of the last 20 years within these two approaches.

show abstract

“…For simplicity, we chose not to address such an extension in the present treatment, and leave it as future work. We conjecture that such an extension would allow to replicate the results of [BH13], which studies the difference between compliance preorders (where…”

Section: Testingmentioning

confidence: 97%

A Semantic Deconstruction of Session Types

Bartoletti

Scalas

Zunino

2014

CONCUR 2014 – Concurrency Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Doctoral Thesis A Semantic Deconstruction of Session Types by Alceste Scalas This work investigates the semantic foundations of binary session types, by revisiting First and foremost, I wish to thank my PhD supervisor, Massimo Bartoletti, for his invaluable advice, for the long discussions in front of the whiteboard, and for all the opportunities he gave me to learn new things. The last 3 years have been intense and stimulating, and they certainly represent a pivoting point of my life-both professionally and personally. Massimo's role and influence is difficult to overstate. I also wish to thank Roberto Zunino: our looong Skype meetings have been a fundamental part of my PhD activity, and they have had a huge impact on my work. I am grateful to Simon Gay and Luca Padovani, for reviewing this thesis and giving detailed remarks and helpful suggestions. Thanks to Emilio Tuosto and Nobuko Yoshida for having me as a visiting student at their respective institutions, and for the insightful discussions and fruitful collaboration. During such visits, I also had the opportunity to work with Julien Lange: I am glad that this happened not just once, but twice! Thanks to my (ex-)colleagues at the University of Cagliari-in particular, Giovanni Casu,

show abstract

Compliance and Testing Preorders Differ

Cited by 8 publications

References 17 publications

Mutually Testing Processes

Mutually Testing Processes

Untitled

A Semantic Deconstruction of Session Types

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About