Advertisement

The Spacetub Models and Framework

  • Robert Tolksdorf
  • Gregor Rojec-Goldmann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2315)

Abstract

Spacetub is a framework to model a variety of coordination languages from the Linda family and a testbed for experimentation with them.We describe the design of the framework derived from a comparative analysis of a set of language, its structure and its initial implementation.

Keywords

Mobile Agent Security Policy Object Space Coordination Model Tuple Space 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    K. Arnold, A. Wollrath, B. O’Sullivan, R. Scheifler, and J. Waldo. The Jini specification. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, USA, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Banville. SONIA: an Adaptation of Linda for Coordination of Activities in Organizations. In P. Ciancarini and C. Hankin, editors, Coordination Languages and Models, volume 1061 of LNCS, pages 57–74. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Booch, J. Rumbaugh, and I. Jacobson. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, USA, 1st edition, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Brogi and J. Jacquet. On the expressiveness of Coordination Models. In P. Ciancarini and A. Wolf, editors, Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Coordination Models and Languages, volume 1594 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 134–149, Amsterdam, Apr. 1999. Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Brown, K. Jeong, B. Li, S. Talla, P. Wyckoff, and D. Shasha. PLinda User Manual. Technical Report TR1996-729, NewYork University, Dec., 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Bryce, M. Oriol, and J. Vitek. A Coordination Model for Agents Based on Secure Spaces. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1594:4–20, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Busi, R. Gorrieri, and G. Zavattaro. Comparing three semantics for Linda-like languages. Theoretical Computer Science, 240(1):49–90, June 2000.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Butcher, A. Wood, and M. Atkins. Global synchronisation in Linda. Concurrency: Practice and Experience, 6(6):505–516, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Cabri, L. Leonardi, and F. Zambonelli. MARS:AProgrammable CoordinationArchitecture for Mobile Agents. IEEE Internet Computing, 4(4):26–35, July/Aug. 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    N. Carriero and D. Gelernter. Linda in context. Communications of the ACM, 32(4):444–458, Apr. 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. Carriero, D. Gelernter, and L. Zuck. Bauhaus-Linda. In Workshop on Languages and Models for Coordination, European Conference on Object Oriented Programming, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. Denti, A. Natali, and A. Omicini. On the Expressive Power of a Language for Programming Coordination Media. In J. Carroll et al., editors, Proc. ACM/SIGAPP Symp. on Applied Computing (SAC 98), pages 169–177. ACM Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Ducasse, T. Hofmann, and O. Nierstrasz. OpenSpaces:An Object-Oriented Framework For Reconfigurable Coordination Spaces. In A. Porto and G.-C. Roman, editors, Coordination Languages and Models, LNCS 1906, pages 1–19, Limassol, Cyprus, Sept. 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Gelernter. Multiple Tuple Spaces in Linda. In E. Odijk, M. Rem, and J.-C. Syre, editors, Proceedings of the Conference on Parallel Architectures and Languages Europe: Vol. 2, volume 366 of LNCS, pages 20–27, Berlin, June 1989. Springer.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. L. Jacob and A. M. Wood. A Principled Semantics for inp. In A. Porto and G.-C. Roman, editors, Coordination Languages and Models, 4th International Conference, COORDINATION 2000, Limassol, Cyprus, September 11-13, 2000, Proceedings, volume 1906 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 51–65. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.-M. Jacquet, K. D. Bosschere, and A. Brogi. On Timed Coordination Languages. In A. Porto and G.-C. Roman, editors, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Coordination Models and LanguagesCoordination Models and Languages, volume 1906of LNCS, pages 81–98, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Kielmann. Designing a Coordination Model for Open Systems. In P. Ciancarini and C. Hankin, editors, Coordination Languages and Models, volume 1061 of LNCS, pages 267–284. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Menezes, R. Tolksdorf, and A. M. Wood. Scalability in Linda-like Coordination Systems. In A. Omicini, F. Zambonelli, M. Klusch, and R. Tolksdorf, editors, Coordination of Internet Agents: Models, Technologies, and Applications, chapter 12, pages 299–319. Springer-Verlag, Mar. 2001.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    I. Merrick and A. Wood. Coordination with scopes. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM symposium on Applied computing, Como Italy, volume 1, pages 210–217, 2000.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    N. Minsky and J. Leichter. Law-Governed Linda as a Coordination Model. In P. Ciancarini, O. Nierstrasz, and A. Yonezawa, editors, Object-Based Models and Languages for Concurrent Systems, LNCS 924, pages 125–146. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. P. Picco, A. L. Murphy, and G.-C. Roman. Lime: Linda Meets Mobility. In D. Garlan, editor, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’99), pages 368–377, Los Angeles, CA, USA, May 1999. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Pinakis. Providing Directed Communication in Linda. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, University ofWestern Australia, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Rowstron. WCL: A co-ordination language for geographically distributed agents. World Wide Web, 1(3):167–179, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Rowstron and A. Wood. Solving the Linda Multiple rd Problem. In P. Ciancarini and C. Hankin, editors, Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Coordination Models and Languages, volume 1061, pages 357–367, Cesena, Italy, 1996. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. Rowstron and A. Wood. Bonita: a set of tuple space primitives for distributed coordination. In Proc. HICSS30, pages 379–388, Hawaii, 1997. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    R. Tolksdorf. Berlinda:An object oriented platform for implementing coordination languages in Java. In D. Garlan and D. LeMetayer, editors, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Coordination Models and Languages, volume 1282 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 430–434, Berlin, Germany, Sept. 1997. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 28.
    J. Waldo et al. JavaSpaces Specification-1.0. Technical report, Sun Microsystems, 1998.Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    A. Wood. Coordination with Attributes. In P. Ciancarini and A. Wolf, editors, Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Coordination Models and Languages, volume 1594 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 21–36, Amsterdam, Netherland, Apr. 1999. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    P. Wyckoff, S. McLaughry, T. Lehman, and D. Ford. T Spaces. IBM Systems Journal, 37(3):454–474, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Tolksdorf
    • 1
  • Gregor Rojec-Goldmann
    • 2
  1. 1.Fakultät IV Informatik, iVSTU BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Fakultät IV Informatik, FLP/KITTU BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations