Rule-Based Transactional Object Migration over a Reflective Middleware

  • Damián Arregui
  • François Pacull
  • Jutta Willamowski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2218)


Object migration is an often overlooked topic in distributed object-oriented platforms. Most common solutions provide data serialization and code mobility across several hosts. But existing mechanisms fall short in ensuring consistency when migrating objects, or agents, involved in coordinated interactions with each other, possibly governed by a multi-phase protocol. We propose an object migration scheme addressing this issue, implemented on top of the Coordination Language Facility (CLF). It exploits the particular combination of features in CLF: the resource-based programming paradigm and the communication protocol integrating a negotiation and a transaction phase. We illustrate through examples how our migration mechanism goes beyond classical solutions. It can be fine-tuned to consider different requirements and settings, and thus be adapted to a variety of situations


Mobile Agent Object Manager Freezable State Execution State Object Description 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    P. Amaral, C. Jacquemot, P. Jensen, R. Lea, and A. Mirowski ”. Transparent object migration in COOL2. In Yolande Berbers and Peter Dickman, editors, Position Papers of the ECOOP’ 92 Workshop W2, pages 72–77, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J-M. Andreoli, D. Arregui, F. Pacull, M. Riviere, J-Y. Vion-Dury, and J. Willamowski. CLF/Mekano: a framework for building virtual-enterprise applications. In Proc. of EDOC’99, Mannheim, Germany, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J-M. Andreoli, D. Pagani, F. Pacull, and R. Pareschi. Multiparty negotiation for dynamic distributed object services. Journal of Science of Computer Programming, 31(2–3):179–203, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Y. Artsy and R. Finkel. Designing a process migration facility: The Charlotte experience. IEEE Computer, 22(9):47–58, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Gelernter. Generative communication in Linda. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 7(1):80–112, 1985.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Sun Microsystemns. Java.
  8. 8.
    Sun Microsystems. Java Remote Method Invocation specification. Technical report, Sun Microsystems, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Nuttall. Survey of systems providing process or object migration. Technical Report 94/10, Imperial College, London, UK, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    OMG. Mobile Agent Facility specification., January 2000.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    M. Shapiro, P. Gautron, and L. Mosseri. Persistence and migration for C++ objects. In ECOOP’89, Proc. of the Third European Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, pages 191–204, Nottingham (GB), July 1989. Cambridge University Society.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sun Microsystems. RPC: Remote Procedure Call protocol specification. Technical Report RFC-1057, Sun Microsystems, Inc., June 1988.Google Scholar
  15. 15.

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Damián Arregui
    • 1
  • François Pacull
    • 1
  • Jutta Willamowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Xerox Research Centre EuropeMeylanFrance

Personalised recommendations