Linguistic Reflection in Java

Reflective systems allow their own structures to be altered from within. Here we are concerned with a style of reflection, called linguistic reflection, which is the ability of a running program to generate new program fragments and to integrate these into its own execution. In particular we describe how this kind of reflection may be provided in the compiler-based, strongly typed object-oriented programming language Java. The advantages of the programming technique include attaining high levels of genericity and accommodating system evolution. These advantages are illustrated by an example taken from persistent programming which shows how linguistic reflection allows functionality (program code) to be generated on demand (Just-In-Time) from a generic specification and integrated into the evolving running program. The technique is evaluated against alternative implementation approaches with respect to efficiency, safety and ease of use.Comment: 25 pages. Source code for examples at http://www-ppg.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/Java/ReflectionExample/ Dynamic compilation package at http://www-ppg.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/Java/DynamicCompilation

Sawja: Static Analysis Workshop for Java

Static analysis is a powerful technique for automatic verification of programs but raises major engineering challenges when developing a full-fledged analyzer for a realistic language such as Java. This paper describes the Sawja library: a static analysis framework fully compliant with Java 6 which provides OCaml modules for efficiently manipulating Java bytecode programs. We present the main features of the library, including (i) efficient functional data-structures for representing program with implicit sharing and lazy parsing, (ii) an intermediate stack-less representation, and (iii) fast computation and manipulation of complete programs

The Java system dependence graph

The Program Dependence Graph was introduced by Ottenstein and Ottenstein in 1984 [14]. It was suggested to be a suitable internal program representation for monolithic programs, for the purpose of carrying out certain software engineering operations such as slicing and the computation of program metrics. Since then, Horwitz et al. have introduced the multi-procedural equivalent System Dependence Graph [9]. Many authors have proposed object-oriented dependence graph construction approaches [11, 10, 20, 12]. Every approach provides its own benefits, some of which are language specific. This paper is based on Java and combines the most important benefits from a range of approaches. The result is a Java System Dependence Graph, which summarises the key benefits offered by different approaches and adapts them (if necessary) to the Java language

Reify Your Collection Queries for Modularity and Speed!

Modularity and efficiency are often contradicting requirements, such that programers have to trade one for the other. We analyze this dilemma in the context of programs operating on collections. Performance-critical code using collections need often to be hand-optimized, leading to non-modular, brittle, and redundant code. In principle, this dilemma could be avoided by automatic collection-specific optimizations, such as fusion of collection traversals, usage of indexing, or reordering of filters. Unfortunately, it is not obvious how to encode such optimizations in terms of ordinary collection APIs, because the program operating on the collections is not reified and hence cannot be analyzed. We propose SQuOpt, the Scala Query Optimizer--a deep embedding of the Scala collections API that allows such analyses and optimizations to be defined and executed within Scala, without relying on external tools or compiler extensions. SQuOpt provides the same "look and feel" (syntax and static typing guarantees) as the standard collections API. We evaluate SQuOpt by re-implementing several code analyses of the Findbugs tool using SQuOpt, show average speedups of 12x with a maximum of 12800x and hence demonstrate that SQuOpt can reconcile modularity and efficiency in real-world applications.Comment: 20 page

Modular session types for objects

Session types allow communication protocols to be specified type-theoretically so that protocol implementations can be verified by static type checking. We extend previous work on session types for distributed object-oriented languages in three ways. (1) We attach a session type to a class definition, to specify the possible sequences of method calls. (2) We allow a session type (protocol) implementation to be modularized, i.e. partitioned into separately-callable methods. (3) We treat session-typed communication channels as objects, integrating their session types with the session types of classes. The result is an elegant unification of communication channels and their session types, distributed object-oriented programming, and a form of typestate supporting non-uniform objects, i.e. objects that dynamically change the set of available methods. We define syntax, operational se-mantics, a sound type system, and a sound and complete type checking algorithm for a small distributed class-based object-oriented language with structural subtyping. Static typing guarantees that both sequences of messages on channels, and sequences of method calls on objects, conform to type-theoretic specifications, thus ensuring type-safety. The language includes expected features of session types, such as delegation, and expected features of object-oriented programming, such as encapsulation of local state.Comment: Logical Methods in Computer Science (LMCS), International Federation for Computational Logic, 201

Towards the Formal Specification and Verification of Maple Programs

In this paper, we present our ongoing work and initial results on the formal specification and verification of MiniMaple (a substantial subset of Maple with slight extensions) programs. The main goal of our work is to find behavioral errors in such programs w.r.t. their specifications by static analysis. This task is more complex for widely used computer algebra languages like Maple as these are fundamentally different from classical languages: they support non-standard types of objects such as symbols, unevaluated expressions and polynomials and require abstract computer algebraic concepts and objects such as rings and orderings etc. As a starting point we have defined and formalized a syntax, semantics, type system and specification language for MiniMaple