Semantic Constructs for a Persistent Programming Language
One objective of persistent languages is to permit the structure and semantics of data to be expressed precisely and simply. As a result programs are easier to write and the integrity of the data is less likely to be compromised. This paper presents a persistent programming language which includes a constraint definition and checking system. The language uses a semantic data model to define the structure and operations on data. The paper begins with a description of the features of semantic data models and constraint enforcement systems. The constraint definition aspects of the language Perci are then explained, along with an outline of the implementation of the constraint handling system. Perci is compared with existing persistent languages and the advantages of the new language are indicated.
KeywordsIntegrity Constraint Constraint Check Invalid State Store Constraint Persistent Store
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Francois Bancilhon and Peter Buneman. Advances in Database Programming Languages, chapter 12, pages 187–217. Addison-Wesley, 1990.Google Scholar
- Alan Dearle. On the Construction of Persistent Programming Environments. Technical Report 65, University of St. Andrews, March 1988.Google Scholar
- R. Morrison, F. Brown, R. Connor, and A. Dearle. The Napier88 Reference Manual. Persistent Programming Research Report 77, Universities of Glasgow and St Andrews, July 1989. PPRR-77–89.Google Scholar
- Gabriel Olusegun Owoso. Data Descripton and Manipulation in Persistent Programming Languages. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, Department of Computer Science, December 1984. CST-32–84.Google Scholar
- Persistent Programming Research Group. PS-algol Reference Manual, 2nd edition, 1985. PPRR-12–85.Google Scholar
- J. W. Schmidt, H. Eckhardt, and F. Matthes. DBPL Report. Fachbereigh Informatik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat, draft edition, November 1988.Google Scholar
- Shane B Sparg. Syntax of the language Perci. Technical Report, March 1992.Google Scholar