Compensations in an imperative programming language

Numerous mechanisms are used to deal with failure of sys- tems or processes, one of which is that of compensating ac- tions. A compensation can be seen as a program which somehow cancels out the effects of another — and by or- ganising code in such a way so as to associate each program with its compensation, enables implicit recovery to a sane state if part of a computation somehow fails. In this paper we present an imperative programming language natively supporting the notion of compensations, thus enabling the programmer to program using a notion of compensations at the source level of the system under development.peer-reviewe

LTS Semantics for Compensation-based Processes

Business processes design is an error-prone task often relying on long-running transactions with compensations. Unambiguous formal semantics and flexible verification tools should be used for early validation of processes. To this aim, we define a small-step semantics for the Sagas calculus according to the so-called coordinated interruption policy. We show that it can be tuned via small changes to deal with other compensation policies and discuss possible enhancements

Recovery within long running transactions

As computer systems continue to grow in complexity, the possibilities of failure increase. At the same time, the increase in computer system pervasiveness in day-to-day activities brought along increased expectations on their reliability. This has led to the need for effective and automatic error recovery techniques to resolve failures. Transactions enable the handling of failure propagation over concurrent systems due to dependencies, restoring the system to the point before the failure occurred. However, in various settings, especially when interacting with the real world, reversal is not possible. The notion of compensations has been long advocated as a way of addressing this issue, through the specification of activities which can be executed to undo partial transactions. Still, there is no accepted standard theory; the literature offers a plethora of distinct formalisms and approaches. In this survey, we review the compensations from a theoretical point of view by: (i) giving a historic account of the evolution of compensating transactions; (ii) delineating and describing a number of design options involved; (iii) presenting a number of formalisms found in the literature, exposing similarities and differences; (iv) comparing formal notions of compensation correctness; (v) giving insights regarding the application of compensations in practice; and (vi) discussing current and future research trends in the area.peer-reviewe

Extending and Relating Semantic Models of Compensating CSP

Business transactions involve multiple partners coordinating and interacting with each other. These transactions have hierarchies of activities which need to be orchestrated. Usual database approaches (e.g.,checkpoint, rollback) are not applicable to handle faults in a long running transaction due to interaction with multiple partners. The compensation mechanism handles faults that can arise in a long running transaction. Based on the framework of Hoare's CSP process algebra, Butler et al introduced Compensating CSP (cCSP), a language to model long-running transactions. The language introduces a method to declare a transaction as a process and it has constructs for orchestration of compensation. Butler et al also defines a trace semantics for cCSP. In this thesis, the semantic models of compensating CSP are extended by defining an operational semantics, describing how the state of a program changes during its execution. The semantics is encoded into Prolog to animate the specification. The semantic models are further extended to define the synchronisation of processes. The notion of partial behaviour is defined to model the behaviour of deadlock that arises during process synchronisation. A correspondence relationship is then defined between the semantic models and proved by using structural induction. Proving the correspondence means that any of the presentation can be accepted as a primary definition of the meaning of the language and each definition can be used correctly at different times, and for different purposes. The semantic models and their relationships are mechanised by using the theorem prover PVS. The semantic models are embedded in PVS by using Shallow embedding. The relationships between semantic models are proved by mutual structural induction. The mechanisation overcomes the problems in hand proofs and improves the scalability of the approach

Extending and relating semantic models of compensating CSP

Business transactions involve multiple partners coordinating and interacting with each other. These transactions have hierarchies of activities which need to be orchestrated. Usual database approaches (e.g.,checkpoint, rollback) are not applicable to handle faults in a long running transaction due to interaction with multiple partners. The compensation mechanism handles faults that can arise in a long running transaction. Based on the framework of Hoare's CSP process algebra, Butler et al introduced Compensating CSP (cCSP), a language to model long-running transactions. The language introduces a method to declare a transaction as a process and it has constructs for orchestration of compensation. Butler et al also defines a trace semantics for cCSP. In this thesis, the semantic models of compensating CSP are extended by defining an operational semantics, describing how the state of a program changes during its execution. The semantics is encoded into Prolog to animate the specification. The semantic models are further extended to define the synchronisation of processes. The notion of partial behaviour is defined to model the behaviour of deadlock that arises during process synchronisation. A correspondence relationship is then defined between the semantic models and proved by using structural induction. Proving the correspondence means that any of the presentation can be accepted as a primary definition of the meaning of the language and each definition can be used correctly at different times, and for different purposes. The semantic models and their relationships are mechanised by using the theorem prover PVS. The semantic models are embedded in PVS by using Shallow embedding. The relationships between semantic models are proved by mutual structural induction. The mechanisation overcomes the problems in hand proofs and improves the scalability of the approach.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo