Dynamic Package Interfaces - Extended Version

A hallmark of object-oriented programming is the ability to perform computation through a set of interacting objects. A common manifestation of this style is the notion of a package, which groups a set of commonly used classes together. A challenge in using a package is to ensure that a client follows the implicit protocol of the package when calling its methods. Violations of the protocol can cause a runtime error or latent invariant violations. These protocols can extend across different, potentially unboundedly many, objects, and are specified informally in the documentation. As a result, ensuring that a client does not violate the protocol is hard. We introduce dynamic package interfaces (DPI), a formalism to explicitly capture the protocol of a package. The DPI of a package is a finite set of rules that together specify how any set of interacting objects of the package can evolve through method calls and under what conditions an error can happen. We have developed a dynamic tool that automatically computes an approximation of the DPI of a package, given a set of abstraction predicates. A key property of DPI is that the unbounded number of configurations of objects of a package are summarized finitely in an abstract domain. This uses the observation that many packages behave monotonically: the semantics of a method call over a configuration does not essentially change if more objects are added to the configuration. We have exploited monotonicity and have devised heuristics to obtain succinct yet general DPIs. We have used our tool to compute DPIs for several commonly used Java packages with complex protocols, such as JDBC, HashSet, and ArrayList.Comment: The only changes compared to v1 are improvements to the Abstract and Introductio

Contracts in Practice

Contracts are a form of lightweight formal specification embedded in the program text. Being executable parts of the code, they encourage programmers to devote proper attention to specifications, and help maintain consistency between specification and implementation as the program evolves. The present study investigates how contracts are used in the practice of software development. Based on an extensive empirical analysis of 21 contract-equipped Eiffel, C#, and Java projects totaling more than 260 million lines of code over 7700 revisions, it explores, among other questions: 1) which kinds of contract elements (preconditions, postconditions, class invariants) are used more often; 2) how contracts evolve over time; 3) the relationship between implementation changes and contract changes; and 4) the role of inheritance in the process. It has found, among other results, that: the percentage of program elements that include contracts is above 33% for most projects and tends to be stable over time; there is no strong preference for a certain type of contract element; contracts are quite stable compared to implementations; and inheritance does not significantly affect qualitative trends of contract usage

An Empirical Study of Object Protocols in the

Abstract. An active area of research in computer science is the prevention of violations of object protocols, i.e., restrictions on temporal orderings of method calls on an object. However, little is understood about object protocols in practice. This paper describes an empirical study of object protocols in some popular open-source Java programs. In our study, we have attempted to determine how often object protocols are defined, and how often they are used, while also developing a taxonomy of similar protocols. In the open-source projects in our study, comprising almost two million lines of code, approximately 7.2 % of all types defined protocols, while 13 % of classes were clients of types defining protocols. (For comparison, 2.5 % of the types in the Java library define type parameters usingJava Generics.) This suggests thatprotocol checkingtools are widely applicable.

ModelLAND: Where Do Models Come from?

International audienc