Advertisement

Regulated coordination in open distributed systems

  • Naftaly H. Minsky
  • Victoria Ungureanu
Regular Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1282)

Abstract

Modern distributed systems tend to be conglomerates of heterogeneous subsystems, which have been designed separately, by different people, with little, if any, knowledge of each other. A single agent operating within a hybrid system of this kind may have to coordinate its activities with members of several such subsystems, under different coordination policies. To support coordination in such hybrid systems, we introduce in this paper a new concept of regulated coordination that allows a single agent to engage in several different activities, subject to disparate policies. Coordination policies are enforced to ensure compliance with them by all participants. We introduce a toolkit called Moses that can support a wide range of useful coordination policies of this kind, in an efficient and unified manner.

Keywords

Home Agent Delay Condition Coordination Policy Purchase Order Primitive Operation 
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.
    J. M. Andreoli. Coordination in LO. In J.-M. Andreoli, C. Hankin, and D. Le Metayer, editors, Coordination Programming, pages 42–64. Imperial College Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.-M. Andreoli, P. Ciancarini, and R. Pareschi. Interaction abstract machines. In G. Agha, P. Wegner, and A. Yonezawa, editors, Research Directions in Concurrent Object-Oriented Programming, pages 257–280. 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. M. Andreoli, H. Gallaire, and R. Pareschi. Rule-based object coordination. In P. Ciancarini, O. Nierstrasz, and A. Yonezawa, editors, Object-Based Models and Languages for Concurrent Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1–13. Springer-Verlag, 1995. Number 924.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. P. Banatre and D. Le Metayer. Gamma and the chemical reaction model: Ten years after. In J. M. Andreoli, C. Hankin, and D. Le Metayer, editors, Coordination Programming, pages 3–41. Imperial College Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Banville. Sonia: an adaptation of Linda for coordination of activities in organizations. In P. Ciancarini and C. Hankin, editors, Coordination Languages and Models, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 57–74. Springer-Verlag, 1996. Number 1061.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K.P. Birman. The process group approach to reliable distributed computing. Communications of the ACM, 36(12):36–53, December 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Carriero and D. Gelernter. Coordination languages and their significance. Communications of the ACM, 35(2):97–107, February 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Castellani and P. Ciancarini. Enhancing coordination and modularity mechanisms for a language with objects-as-multisets. In P. Ciancarini and C. Hankin, editors, Coordination Languages and Models, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 89–106. Springer-Verlag, 1996. Number 1061.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Cortes and P. Mishra. DCWPL: A programming language for describing collaborative work. In Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pages 21–29, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S.J.H. Kent, T.S.E. Maibaum, and W.J. Quirk. Formally specifying temporal constraints and error recovery. In Proceedings of the IEEE Int. Symp. on Requirement Engineering, pages 208–215, San Diego, CA, January 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    N.H. Minsky. The imposition of protocols over open distributed systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, February 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    N.H. 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, number 924 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 125–146. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    N.H. Minsky and A. Lockman. Ensuring integrity by adding obligations to privileges. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 92–102, August 1985.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    N.H. Minsky and V. Ungureanu. Unified support for heterogeneous security policies. Technical report, Rutgers University, LCSR, February 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Morris. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1981.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feather Martin S. An implementation of bounded obligtions. In Proceedings of the 8th Knowladge Based Software Engineering Conference, pages 114–122, Chicago, Ill, September 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    F.B. Schneider. Implementing fault tolerant services using the state machine approach. ACM Computing Surveys, 22(4):300–319, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    F. Schwenkreis. Workflow for the German Federal Government — a position paper. In NSF Workshop on Workflow and Process Automation in Information Systems, May 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Werner, M.Polze and M. Malek. The unstoppable orchestra: A responsive distributed application. In Third International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems, pages 154–160, May 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naftaly H. Minsky
    • 1
  • Victoria Ungureanu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations