On the robustness of Herlihy's hierarchy

A wait-free hierarchy maps object types to levels in Z(+) U (infinity) and has the following property: if a type T is at level N, and T' is an arbitrary type, then there is a wait-free implementation of an object of type T', for N processes, using only registers and objects of type T. The infinite hierarchy defined by Herlihy is an example of a wait-free hierarchy. A wait-free hierarchy is robust if it has the following property: if T is at level N, and S is a finite set of types belonging to levels N - 1 or lower, then there is no wait-free implementation of an object of type T, for N processes, using any number and any combination of objects belonging to the types in S. Robustness implies that there are no clever ways of combining weak shared objects to obtain stronger ones. Contrary to what many researchers believe, we prove that Herlihy's hierarchy is not robust. We then define some natural variants of Herlihy's hierarchy, which are also infinite wait-free hierarchies. With the exception of one, which is still open, these are not robust either. We conclude with the open question of whether non-trivial robust wait-free hierarchies exist

A Wealth of Sub-Consensus Deterministic Objects

The consensus hierarchy classifies shared an object according to its consensus number, which is the maximum number of processes that can solve consensus wait-free using the object. The question of whether this hierarchy is precise enough to fully characterize the synchronization power of deterministic shared objects was open until 2016, when Afek et al. showed that there is an infinite hierarchy of deterministic objects, each weaker than the next, which is strictly between i and i+1-processors consensus, for i >= 2. For i=1, the question whether there exist a deterministic object whose power is strictly between read-write and 2-processors consensus, remained open. We resolve the question positively by exhibiting an infinite hierarchy of simple deterministic objects which are equivalent to set-consensus tasks, and thus are stronger than read-write registers, but they cannot implement consensus for two processes. Still our paper leaves a gap with open questions

BOUND OBJECT HIERARCHY SERVICE

Presented herein is a hierarchical representation of uniquely identified objects within the physical world, referred to as a “Bound Object Hierarchy Service.” The Bound Object Hierarchy Service enables the synchronous shared view and creation of digital twins among coordinating entities. The system enables the representation and policy based access to objects, mapped from the physical world, that would typically be considered to follow a “bound within” hierarchy. The digital custody and ownership of the physical objects can autonomously change over time within the system (e.g., as an object passes along a supply chain, determined via sensors within the environment and policy based access). The policy based approach can additionally enable third parties or a limited set of the system participants to access the object hierarchy data in order to view specific elements of the tracked objects, along with the sharing of object sensor data

A separation of (n -1)-consensus and n-consensus in read-write shared-memory systems

A fundamental research theme in distributed computing is the comparison of systems in terms of their ability to solve basic problems such as consensus that cannot be solved in completely asynchronous systems. In particular, in a seminal work [14], Herlihy compares shared-memory systems in terms of the shared objects that they have: he proved that there are shared objects that are powerful enough to solve consensus among n processes, but are too weak to solve consensus among n + 1 processes; such objects are placed at level n of a wait-free hierarchy. The importance of this hierarchy comes from Herlihy's universality result: intuitively, every object at level n of this hierarchy can be used to implement any object shared by n processes in a wait-free manner. As in [14], we compare shared-memory systems with respect to their ability to solve consensus among n processes. But instead of comparing systems defined by the shared objects that they have, we compare readwrite systems defined by the process schedules that they allow. These systems capture a large set of systems, e.g., systems whose synchrony ranges from fully synchronous to completely asynchronous, several systems with failure detectors, and "obstruction-free" systems. In this paper, we consider read-write systems defined in terms of process schedules, and investigate the following natural question: For every n, is there a system of n processes that is strong enough to solve consensus among every subset of n -1 processes in the system, but not enough to solve consensus among all the n processes of the system? We show that the answer to the above question is "yes", and so these systems can be classified into hierarchy akin to Herlihy's hierarchy

Asynchronous data retrieval from an object-oriented database

We present an object-oriented semantic database model which, similar to other object-oriented systems, combines the virtues of four concepts: the functional data model, a property inheritance hierarchy, abstract data types and message-driven computation. The main emphasis is on the last of these four concepts. We describe generic procedures that permit queries to be processed in a purely message-driven manner. A database is represented as a network of nodes and directed arcs, in which each node is a logical processing element, capable of communicating with other nodes by exchanging messages. This eliminates the need for shared memory and for centralized control during query processing. Hence, the model is suitable for implementation on a multiprocessor computer architecture, consisting of large numbers of loosely coupled processing elements

A separation of (n -1)-consensus and n-consensus in read-write shared-memory systems

A fundamental research theme in distributed computing is the comparison of systems in terms of their ability to solve basic problems such as consensus that cannot be solved in completely asynchronous systems. In particular, in a seminal work [14], Herlihy compares shared-memory systems in terms of the shared objects that they have: he proved that there are shared objects that are powerful enough to solve consensus among n processes, but are too weak to solve consensus among n + 1 processes; such objects are placed at level n of a wait-free hierarchy. The importance of this hierarchy comes from Herlihy's universality result: intuitively, every object at level n of this hierarchy can be used to implement any object shared by n processes in a wait-free manner. As in [14], we compare shared-memory systems with respect to their ability to solve consensus among n processes. But instead of comparing systems defined by the shared objects that they have, we compare readwrite systems defined by the process schedules that they allow. These systems capture a large set of systems, e.g., systems whose synchrony ranges from fully synchronous to completely asynchronous, several systems with failure detectors, and "obstruction-free" systems. In this paper, we consider read-write systems defined in terms of process schedules, and investigate the following natural question: For every n, is there a system of n processes that is strong enough to solve consensus among every subset of n -1 processes in the system, but not enough to solve consensus among all the n processes of the system? We show that the answer to the above question is "yes", and so these systems can be classified into hierarchy akin to Herlihy's hierarchy

On the Computational Power of Shared Objects

Abstract. We propose a new classification for evaluating the strength of shared objects. The classification is based on finding, for each object of type o, the strongest progress condition for which it is possible to solve consensus for any number of processes, using any number of objects of type o and atomic registers. We use the strongest progress condition to associate with each object a number call the power number of that object. Objects with higher power numbers are considered stronger. Then, we define the power hierarchy which is an infinite hi-erarchy of objects such that the objects at level i of the hierarchy are exactly those objects with power number i. Comparing our classification with the traditional one which is based on fixing the progress condition (namely, wait-freedom) and finding the largest number of processes for which consensus is solvable, reveals interesting results. Our equivalence and extended universality results, provide a deeper understanding of the nature of the relative computational power of shared objects

Designing Software Architectures As a Composition of Specializations of Knowledge Domains

This paper summarizes our experimental research and software development activities in designing robust, adaptable and reusable software architectures. Several years ago, based on our previous experiences in object-oriented software development, we made the following assumption: ‘A software architecture should be a composition of specializations of knowledge domains’. To verify this assumption we carried out three pilot projects. In addition to the application of some popular domain analysis techniques such as use cases, we identified the invariant compositional structures of the software architectures and the related knowledge domains. Knowledge domains define the boundaries of the adaptability and reusability capabilities of software systems. Next, knowledge domains were mapped to object-oriented concepts. We experienced that some aspects of knowledge could not be directly modeled in terms of object-oriented concepts. In this paper we describe our approach, the pilot projects, the experienced problems and the adopted solutions for realizing the software architectures. We conclude the paper with the lessons that we learned from this experience