Coordination through Channel Composition

Arbab, Farhad; Mavaddat, Farhad

doi:10.1007/3-540-46000-4_6

Cited by 35 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Green producer code (lines [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] consists of an infinite loop where in each iteration, it performs some computation and assigns the value it wishes to produce to local variable greenText (lines [14][15], and waits for its turn by attempting to acquire greenSsemaphore (line 17). Next, it waits to gain exclusive access to the shared buffer, and while it has this exclusive access, it assigns greenText into buffer (lines [18][19][20].…”

Section: Fig 1 Alternating Producers and Consumermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Coordinating Multicore Computing

Arbab

Jongmans

2015

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Traditional models of concurrency resort to peculiarly indirect means to express interaction and study its properties. Formalisms such as process algebras/calculi, concurrent objects, actors, shared memory, message passing, etc., all are primarily action-based models that provide constructs for the direct specification of things that interact, rather than a direct specification of interaction (protocols). Consequently, interaction in these formalisms becomes a derived or secondary concept whose properties can be studied only indirectly, as the sideeffects of the (intended or coincidental) couplings or clashes of the actions whose compositions comprise a model.Treating interaction as an explicit first-class concept, complete with its own composition operators, allows to specify more complex interaction protocols by combining simpler, and eventually primitive, protocols. Reo [4,7,8,15] serves as a premier example of such an interaction-based model of concurrency. In this paper, we describe Reo and its compiler. We show how exogenous coordination in Reo reflects an interaction-centric model of concurrency where an interaction (protocol) consists of nothing but a relational constraint on communication actions. In this setting, interaction protocols become explicit, concrete, tangible (software) constructs that can be specified, verified, composed, and reused, independently of the actors that they may engage in disparate applications.

show abstract

Section: Fig 1 Alternating Producers and Consumermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reo [4,7,8,15] serves as a premier example of such an interaction-based model of concurrency. In this paper, we describe Reo and its compiler.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Coordinating Multicore Computing

Arbab

Jongmans

2015

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Formally, a coordination pattern is given as a graph of channels whose nodes represent interaction points and edges are labelled with channel identifiers and types. To provide a concrete illustration of this approach, the Reo framework [3,1] is adopted.…”

Section: Coordination Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the reconfiguration of software connectors

Oliveira

Barbosa

2013

Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software connectors encapsulate interaction patterns between services in complex, distributed service-oriented applications. Such patterns evolve over time, in response to faults, changes in the expected QoS levels, emergent requirements or the reassessment of contextual conditions. This paper builds up on a model for connector reconfiguration to introduce notions of reconfiguration equivalence and refinement allowing for reasoning about them. This paves the way towards a (still missing) calculus of connector reconfigurations.

show abstract

“…Its goal is to reduce the practical complexity of performing real-world adaptations; it does so by borrowing ideas from various configuration languages. These are a spectrum of languages explored in mostly parallel strands of research, from low-level linking languages [14] through module interconnection languages [6], coordination languages [1] up to high-level architecture description languages [12,15]. All share a key property: they mitigate complexity by capturing intercomponent relationships, such as communication topologies, information-hiding or parallel execution constraints.…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%