Atomic components

There has been much interest in components that combine the best of state-based and event-based approaches. The interface of a component can be thought of as its specification and substituting components with the same interface cannot be observed by any user of the components. Here we will define the semantics of atomic components where both states and event can be part of the interface. The resulting semantics is very similar to that of (event only) processes. But it has two main novelties: one, it does not need recursion or unique fixed points to model nontermination; and two, the behaviour of divergence is modelled by abstraction, i.e. the construction of the observational semantics

Automatic Parallelisation of Web Applications

Small web applications have a tendency to get bigger. Yet despite the current popularity of web applications, little has been done to help programmers to leverage the performance and scalability benefits that can result from the introduction of parallelism into a program. Accordingly, we present a technique for the automatic parallelisation of whole web applications, including persistent data storage mechanisms. We detail our prototype implementation of this technique, Ceth and finally, we establish the soundness of the process by which we extract coarse-grained parallelism from programs

Contexts, refinement and determinism

In this paper we have been influenced by those who take an “engineering view” of the problem of designing systems, i.e. a view that is motivated by what someone designing a real system will be concerned with, and what questions will arise as they work on their design. Specifically, we have borrowed from the testing work of Hennessy, de Nicola and van Glabbeek, e.g. [13, 5, 21, 40, 39]. Here we concentrate on one fundamental part of the engineering view and where consideration of it leads. The aspects we are concerned with are computational entities in contexts, observed by users. This leads to formalising design steps that are often left informal, and that in turn gives insights into non-determinism and ultimately leads to being able to use refinement in situations where existing techniques fail

State-based and process-based value passing

State-based and process-based formalisms each come with their own distinct set of assumptions and properties. To combine them in a useful way it is important to be sure of these assumptions in order that the formalisms are combined in ways which have, or which allow, the intended combined properties. Consequently we cannot necessarily expect to take on state-based formalism and one process-based formalism and combine them and get something sensible, especially since the act of combining can have subtle consequences. Here we concentrate on value-passing, how it is treated in each formalism, and how the formalisms can be combined so as to preserve certain properties. Specifically, the aim is to take from the many process-based formalisms definitions that will best fit with our chosen stat-based formalism, namely Z, so that the fit is simple, has no unintended consequences and is as elegant as possible

Flexible refinement

To help make refinement more usable in practice we introduce a general, flexible model of refinement. This is defined in terms of what contexts an entity can appear in, and what observations can be made of it in those contexts. Our general model is expressed in terms of an operational semantics, and by exploiting the well-known isomorphism between state-based relational semantics and event-based labelled transition semantics we were able to take particular models from both the state- and event-based literature, reflect on them and gradually evolve our general model. We are also able to view our general model both as a testing semantics and as a logical theory with refinement as implication. Our general model can used as a bridge between different particular special models and using this bridge we compare the definition of determinism found in different special models. We do this because the reduction of nondeterminism underpins many definitions of refinement found in a variety of special models. To our surprise we find that the definition of determinism commonly used in the process algebra literature to be at odds with determinism as defined in other special models. In order to rectify this situation we return to the intuitions expressed by Milner in CCS and by formalising these intuitions we are able to define determinism in process algebra in such a way that it no longer at odds with the definitions we have taken from other special models. Using our abstract definition of determinism we are able to construct a new model, interactive branching programs, that is an implementable subset of process algebra. Later in the chapter we show explicitly how five special models, taken from the literature, are instances of our general model. This is done simply by fixing the sets of contexts and observations involved. Next we define vertical refinement on our general model. Vertical refinement can be seen both as a generalisation of what, in the literature, has been called action refinement or non-atomic refinement. Alternatively, by viewing a layer as a logical theory, vertical refinement is a theory morphism, formalised as a Galois connection. By constructing a vertical refinement between broadcast processes and interactive branching programs we can see how interactive branching programs can be implemented on a platform providing broadcast communication. But we have been unable to extend this theory morphism to implement all of process algebra using broadcast communication. Upon investigation we show the problem arises with the examples that caused the problem with the definition of determinism on process algebra. Finally we illustrate the usefulness of our flexible general model by formally developing a single entity that contains events that use handshake communication and events that use broadcast communication

Liberalising Event B without changing it

We transfer a process algebraic notion of refinement to the B method by using the well-known bridge between the relational semantics underlying the B machines and the labelled transition system semantics of processes. Thus we define delta refinement on Event B systems. We then apply this new refinement to a problem from the literature that previously could only be solved by retrenchment

State- and event-based refinement

In this paper we give simple example abstract data types, with atomic operations, that are related by data refinement under a definition used widely in the literature, but these abstract data types are not related by singleton failure refinement. This contradicts results found in the literature. Further we show that a common way to change a model of atomic operations to one of value passing operations actually changes the underlying atomic operational semantics

Guarded operations, refinement and simulation

Simulation rules have long been used as an effective computational means to decide refinement relations in state-based formalisms. Here we investigate how they might be amended so as to decide the event-based notion of singleton failures refinement of abstract data types or processes that have operations with a "guarded" interpretation. As the results presented here and found elsewhere in the literature are so sensitive to the details of the definitions used, we have machine-checked our results

Constructing programs or processes

We define interacting sequential programs, motivated originally by constructivist considerations. We use them to investigate notions of implementation and determinism. Process algebras do not define what can be implemented and what cannot. As we demonstrate it is problematic to do so on the set of all processes. Guided by constructivist notions we have constructed interacting sequential programs which we claim can be readily implemented and are a subset of processes

Feature refinement

Development by formal stepwise refinement offers a guarantee that an implementation satisfies a specification. But refinement is frequently defined in such a restrictive way as to disallow some useful development steps. Here we de- fine feature refinement to overcome some limitations of re- finement and show its usefulness by applying it to examples taken from the literature. Using partial relations as a canonical state-based semantics and labelled transition systems as a canonical event-based semantics, we degine functions formally linking the state- and event-based operational semantics. We can then use this link to move notions of refinement between the event- and state-based worlds. An advantage of this abstract approach is that it is not restricted to a specific syntax or even a specific interpretation of the operational semantic