1 / 27

START

START. Translation of process algebras to Java. Paul Bilokon Samuel Lau Andrew Roberts. Introduction. Modelling Finite State Processes (FSP) Threads and monitors Mission statement. Modelling. Simplicity: abstraction from irrelevant details Determination of relevant factors

grant
Download Presentation

START

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. START

  2. Translation ofprocess algebras to Java Paul Bilokon Samuel Lau Andrew Roberts

  3. Introduction • Modelling • Finite State Processes (FSP) • Threads and monitors • Mission statement

  4. Modelling • Simplicity: abstraction from irrelevant details • Determination of relevant factors • Predict long term behaviour • “What if” scenarios

  5. Finite State Processes (FSP) • “A process calculus is a small language that allows us to give precise descriptions of the essential properties of concurrent and communicating programs.” • FSP is a process calculus. • FSP is finite, so we can do proofs, safety checks, etc. • Example:SUPREMA_GROUP = (enter -> present -> leave -> SUPREMA_GROUP).AUDIENCE = (yawn -> sleep -> wakeUp -> AUDIENCE).||FUN = (SUPREMA_GROUP || AUDIENCE). • Wishful thinking:yawnsleepenterwakeUppresentleave…

  6. Mission statement • Investigate the relationship between FSP and Java • Restrict the subset of FSP under consideration • Consider examples, develop the theory • Discover interesting patterns and methods • Formalize it, if possible, using mathematical notation • Evaluate the results. Refine the model, if necessary • Could we use these results to build an automated FSP to Java translator? Would this be a useful tool?

  7. Translation • The action prefix and simple processes • Guarded actions • Choice • Variables • Simple parallel composition • Parallel composition of dependent processes • Other FSP constructs

  8. P1 = (a1 -> a2 -> … -> an -> STOP). Quick FSP Recap Actions • FSP Processes  Java classes • FSP Actions  Java Methods • Guards  While-wait loop • Choice  External factor allows choice Guarded Actions P = (when(B) a -> STOP). Choice DRINKS_MACHINE = (red -> coffee -> DRINKS_MACHINE |blue -> tea -> DRINKS_MACHINE).

  9. public class Store { private int i; public Store() { this.i = 0; } synchronized public int put(int i) { this.i = i; } } //END class Variables • FSP Constructor  Java constructor • STORE has a state variable, represented in Java as a field variable • ‘put’ has an action variable, represented as a parameter for the put method range T = 0..5 STORE = STORE[0], STORE[i:T]=(put[i:T]->STORE[i]).

  10. Simple parallel composition ||COMPOSITION = (a1 || a2 || … || an), No shared actions! public class Composition { protected A1 _a1; protected A2 _a2; … protected An _an; public Composition() { new Thread(_a1 = new A1()); new Thread(_a2 = new A2()); … new Thread(_an = new An()); } } • Instantiate and start threads • Non-simple composition uses similar composite class

  11. Composition: caller/callee pattern • Two shared actions: designate one the caller and the other callee • Caller is part of a thread • Calls callee method, which is part of a monitor • Only works with 2 shared actions! public class Caller implements Runnable { public run() { … Callee.a(); … } } public class Callee { synchronized public void a() { //do something } }

  12. Composition: semaphores • Uses semaphores – not intuitive Java • Works for many shared actions – can become complex! public class Bill implements Runnable { public void run() { play(); release(A); acquire(B); eat(); } } //END class BILL = (play -> meet -> eat -> STOP). BEN = (work -> meet -> sleep -> STOP). public class Ben implements Runnable { public void run() { work(); acquire(A); release(B); sleep(); } } //END class

  13. General composition of processes • P1 = (… -> a -> … -> STOP).P2 = (… -> a -> … -> STOP).…P(n – 1) = (… -> a -> … -> STOP).Pn = (… -> a -> … -> STOP). • Method 1. Extend the semaphore method. For n shared methods, (2n-2) semaphores required. Initialize to an ‘acquired’ state. • Method 2.Synchronization object. Uses Java’s inbuilt synchronization. This object is a monitor and counts in the shared actions. Once they have all ‘reported in’ it will let all the threads continue.

  14. Case study: Roller Coaster • Apology  • Monitors and threads revisited • Caller/callee pattern • Problem: parameters or return values? • Problem: action order • Well-formed FSP

  15. Caller/callee pattern • Only one type of process interaction – monitor/thread. • In general, this is the most common form of process communication. • ‘Directionality’ is an important criterion for preferring this design pattern. E.g. the thread Passengers tells the monitor Controller that a newPassenger has arrived.

  16. Problem: parameters vs return • COASTERCAR has action getPassenger[i:1..MCar] with a ‘free’ variable (cf. Prolog). • CONTROLLER has action getPassenger[carSize]. The variable carSize is bound. • A method of Coastercar (thread) to be called from Controller (monitor)? • Use return values instead:synchronized public int getPassenger()in Controller.

  17. Problem: action order • PLATFORMACCESS = (arrive -> depart -> PLATFORMACCESS). • PLATFORMACCESS = ({arrive -> depart} -> PLATFORMACCESS). publicclass PlatformAccess { public boolean arrive_done = false; synchronized public void arrive() { while (arrive_done) wait(); arrive_done = true; } synchronized public void depart() { while (! arrive_done) wait(); arrive_done = false; } }

  18. Well-formed FSP • Is this translation ‘natural’? • Does Java ‘match’ FSP? • Is it easy for an automated FSP2Java program to spot this? • Could ask the user to re-write the FSP to comply with a well-formed FSP standard. • For example…

  19. Well-formed FSP II • PLATFORMACCESS = (arrive -> depart -> PLATFORMACCESS). • PLATFORMACCESS = PLATFORMACCESS[0],PLATFORMACCESS[i:0..1]= (when(i=0) arrive->PLATFORMACCESS[1] |when(i=1) arrive->PLATFORMACCESS[0] ).

  20. Conclusions • What is a good translation? • A subset of FSP • Limitation • Automatic Translation • Further work • FSP modification • Validation of translation • Rest of FSP

  21. What is a good translation? The factors are: • Complexity • Readability We would like to read and understand the Java code easily. We have found out that the Caller/Callee pattern is the most intuitive. However, this pattern cannot be used for more than 2 shared actions.

  22. Limitation • Caller/Callee pattern: Monitor? Thread? • Data flow between processes can be difficult to translate. One solution is to rewrite the FSP and merge the actions. • A FSP can send more than 1 item of data but Java cannot.

  23. Automatic translation • Given more time, we may write a program that automatically translates FSP to Java. • Closer relation between FSP and Java code • Humans have benefit of context, which will effect implementation • Is this feasible?

  24. FSP modification • We may rewrite the FSP in some circumstances. • Aim: Make the translation more effective and concise.

  25. Validation of translation • We are able to translate a large subset of FSP. • But how can we prove that the Java code actually corresponds to the FSP given? • Very difficult: Logic reasoning?

  26. I Want More! You are dazzled, fascinated, intrigued… where do you want to go today? • Prof. Magee’s home page:http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~jnm/ • Our project home page:http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~pb401/Suprema/ • Web articles and project report. • Test yourself – try Q&A!

  27. That’s all, folks! http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~pb401/Suprema

More Related