An Associative Broadcast Based Coordination Model for Distributed Processes

  • James C. Browne
  • Kevin Kane
  • Hongxia Tian
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2315)


We define and describe a model for coordination of distributed processes or components based on associative broadcast. Associative broadcast encapsulates processes with an associative interface. The associative interface includes a profile, which specifies the current state of the component. Each message is sent with a conditional expression (selector), which evaluates to true for specific instances of profiles. Messages are broadcast but are received by only those processes where the selector of the message evaluates to true when matched with the profile of the component. Each component dynamically specifies its profile and selectors to conform to a coordination protocol. Components can, depending on their local state, enter or leave a coordinating set without affecting the other members of the set. Associative broadcast is defined and described. A formulation of associative broadcast implementing coordination among a dynamic set of distributed processes is defined and described. Distributed mutual exclusion is formulated in associative broadcast as an illustration.


Sequence Number Mutual Exclusion Coordination Model Tuple Space Request Queue 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    X. Ao, N. Minsky, T. Nguyen, V. Ungureanu Law-Governed Communities Over the Internet In Proc. of Coordination’ 2000: Fourth International Conference on Coordination Models and Languages, LNCS, No. 1906, pages 133–147, Springer-Verlag, September 2000, Limassol Cyprus.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Arbab, F.S. de Boer, and M.M. Bonsangue. A logical interface description language for components. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Coordination Models and Languages (COORDINATION), LNCS, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Arbab, I. Herman, and P. Spilling, “An Overview of Manifold and its Implementation”, in: Concurrency: Practice and Experience, 5(1993).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Arbab, F.S. de Boer, and M.M. Bonsangue. A coordination language for mobile components. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC2000, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Bayerdorffer, “Associative Broadcast and the Communication Semantics of Naming in Concurrent Systems”, PhD. dissertation, Dept.of Computer Sciences, Univ. of Texas at Austin. Dec. 1993Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bayerdorffer, B.,“Distributed Programming with Associative Broadcast”, Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Boasson “Control System Software” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, 38(7):1094–1107 (1993).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    F.S. de Boer and M. Bonsangue. “A compositional model for confluent dynamic data-flow networks” In Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS), LNCS, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F.S. de Boer and M. Bonsangue. A compositional model for confluent dynamic data-flow networks. In Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS), LNCS, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.C Browne, E. Berger and A. Dube, “Compositional Development of Performance Models in POEMS” International Journal of High Performance Computing and it Applications 14,pp.283–292, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Broy “Equations for Describing Dynamic Nets of Communicating Systems”, in Proc. 5th COMPASS Workshop, Volume 906, LNCS, pp170–187, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    L. Cardelli and A. Gordon “Mobile Ambients” in M. Nivat, editor, “Foundations of Software Science and Computational Structures, Volume 1378 of LNCS, pp.140–155,Springer-Verlag (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Gray and A. Reuter. Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaashoek, M. F., Tanenbaum, A. S., Hummel, S. F., and Bal, H. E. An Efficient Reliable Broadcast Protocol. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 23, 4 (Oct. 1989).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. A. Papadopoulos and F. Arbab “Coordination Models and Languages”, in Advances in Computers, Academic Press, August 1998, Vol. 46: The Engineering of Large Systems.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Rowston and A. Wood “An Efficient Distributed Tuple Space Implementation for Networks of Workstations” In L. Bouge, P Fraigniaud, A. Mignotte and Y. Robert, editors, Europar’96, volume 1123 of LNCS pp.510–513, Springer Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Ricart and A. Agrawala “An Optimal Algorithm for Mutual Exclusion in Computer Networks” Comm.ACM 24(1)(Jan 1981), pp.9–17CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Gelertner. “Generative communication in Linda.” ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Sys., 7(1):80–112, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M.M. Bonsangue, J.N. Kok, and G. Zavattaro. Comparing coordination models based on shared distributed replicated data. In Proceedings of the 1999 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing; Special Track on Coordination Models, Languages and Applications, ACM press, 1999.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Dwork, N. Lynch, and L. Stockmeyer. Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony. Journal of the ACM, 35(2):288–323, April 1988.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • James C. Browne
    • 1
  • Kevin Kane
    • 1
  • Hongxia Tian
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer SciencesThe University of Texas at AustinAustin

Personalised recommendations