Advertisement

Logic Based Coordination for Event–Driven Self–healing Distributed Systems

  • Carlo Montangero
  • Laura Semini
  • Simone Semprini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2949)

Abstract

The ability to deal with events explicitely may enhance the expressivity and simplicity of logical specifications. To this purpose, we explore the use of events in the context of DSTL, a logic tailored for the description and verification of distributed systems in a setting based on asynchronous communications. We define an extension that allows the engineer to mix conditions and events in the specification formulae. To validate our approach we formalize a complex coordination pattern where the events play a central role. The pattern describes the rules a set of components must follow to self–organize in a token–ring.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Andrade, L., Fiadeiro, J.L.: Coordination primitives for event-based systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st Int. Workshop on Distributed Event-Based Systems, DEBS 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armoni, R., Fix, L., Flaisher, A., Gerth, R., Ginsburg, B., Kanza, T., Landver, A., Mador-Haim, S., Singerman, E., Tiemeyer, A., Vardi, M.Y., Zbar, Y.: The forspec temporal logic: A new temporal property-specification language. In: Katoen, J.-P., Stevens, P. (eds.) TACAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2280, pp. 211–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chandy, K.M., Misra, J.: Parallel Program Design: A Foundation. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Costello, T., Patterson, A.: Quantifiers and operations on modalities and contexts. In: Cohn, A.G., Schubert, L., Shapiro, S.C. (eds.) KR 1998: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 270–281. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dias, M.S., Richardson, D.J.: The role of event description in architecting dependable systems. In: 1st Workshop on Architecting Dependable Systems (WADS 2002), Orlando (May 2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferrari, G., Montangero, C., Semini, L., Semprini, S.: Mark, a reasoning kit for mobility. Automated Software Engineering 9(2), 137–150 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A.: Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM 32(2), 374–382 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lamport, L.: The Temporal Logic of Actions. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 16(3), 872–923 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Montangero, C., Semini, L.: Distributed states temporal logic. The Computing Research Repository (CoRR): cs.LO/0304046 (Submitted for pubblication) (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Montangero, C., Semini, L.: Composing Specifications for Coordination. In: Ciancarini, P., Wolf, A.L. (eds.) COORDINATION 1999. LNCS, vol. 1594, pp. 118–133. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montangero, C., Semini, L.: Distributed states logic. In: 9th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME 2002), Manchester, UK, July 2002, IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlo Montangero
    • 1
  • Laura Semini
    • 1
  • Simone Semprini
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità di PisaItaly

Personalised recommendations