On the Expressiveness of Event Notification in Data-Driven Coordination Languages

  • Nadia Busi
  • Gianluigi Zavattaro
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1782)


JavaSpaces and TSpaces are two coordination middlewares for distributed Java programming recently proposed by Sun and IBM, respectively. They are both inspired by the Linda coordination model: processes interact via the emission (out), consumption (in) and the test for absence (inp) of data inside a shared repository. The most interesting improvement introduced by these new products is the event notification mechanism (notify): a process can register interest in the incoming arrivals of a particular kind of data, and then receive communication of the occurrence of these events. We investigate the expressiveness of this new coordination mechanism and we prove that even if event notification strictly increases the expressiveness of a language with only input and output, the obtained language is still strictly less expressive than a language containing also the test for absence.


Operational Semantic Parallel Composition Wrong Choice Random Access Machine Structural Congruence 
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.
    F. Arbab, I. Herman, and P. Spilling. An overview of Manifold and its implementation. Concurrency: Practice and Experience, 5(1):23–70, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Busi, R. Gorrieri, and G. Zavattaro. A Process Algebraic View of Linda Coordination Primitives. Theoretical Computer Science, 192(2):167–199, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. Busi, R. Gorrieri, and G. Zavattaro. Comparing Three Semantics for Linda-like Languages. Theoretical Computer Science, to appear. An extended abstract appeared in Proc. of Coordination’97.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. Busi, R. Gorrieri, and G. Zavattaro. On the Expressiveness of Linda Coordination Primitives. Information and Computation, to appear. An extended abstract appeared in Proc. of Express’97.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. Busi and G. Zavattaro. Event Notification in Data-driven Coordination Languages: Comparing the Ordered and Unordered Interpretation. In Proc. of SAC2000, ACM press. To appear.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Cheng, J. Esparza, and J. Palsberg. Complexity results for 1-safe nets. Theoretical Computer Science, 147:117–136, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Dufourd, A. Finkel, and P. Schnoebelen. Reset nets between decidability and undecidability. In Proc. of ICALP’98, volume 1061 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 103–115. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Gelernter. Generative Communication in Linda. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 7(1):80–112, 1985.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.F. Groote. Transition system specifications with negative premises. Theoretical Computer Science, 118:263–299, 1993.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Leichter. Shared Tuple Memories, Shared Memories, Buses and LANS: Linda Implementations Across the Spectrum of Connectivity. PhD thesis, Yale University Department of Computer Science, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. McClain. Personal communications. March 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.L. Minsky. Computation: finite and infinite machines. Prentice-Hall, 1967.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G.A. Papadopoulos and F. Arbab. Coordination Models and Languages. Advances in Computers, 46:329–400, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. A. Petri. Kommunikation mit Automaten. PhD thesis, Institut für Instrumentelle Mathematik, Bonn, Germany, 1962.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Plotkin. A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, University of Aarhus, 1981.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    W. Reisig. Petri Nets: An Introduction. EATCS Monographs in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.C. Shepherdson and J.E. Sturgis. Computability of recursive functions. Journal of the ACM, 10:217–255, 1963.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sun Microsystem, Inc. JavaSpaces Specifications, 1998.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sun Microsystem, Inc. Jini Architecture Specifications, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    P. Wyckoff, S.W. McLaughry, T.J. Lehman, and D.A. Ford. T Spaces. IBM Systems Journal, 37(3), 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadia Busi
    • 1
  • Gianluigi Zavattaro
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze dell’InformazioneUniversità di BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations