Advertisement

Reflection in a uniform behavioral object model

  • Randal J. Peters
  • M. Tamer özsu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 823)

Abstract

We present the uniform meta-architecture of the TIGUKAT object model and show how it provides reflection in objectbase management systems. Reflection is the ability for a system to manage information about itself and to access (or reason about) this information through the regular access primitives of the model. The TIGUKAT object model is purely behavioral in nature, supports full encapsulation of objects, defines a clear separation between primitive components such as types, classes, collections, behaviors, functions, etc., and incorporates a uniform semantics over objects. The architecture of its meta-system is uniformly represented within itself, which gives a clean semantics for reflection.

Keywords

Object Model Query Model Instance Structure Primitive Component Membership Type 
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.
    P. Cointe. Metaclasses are First Class: the ObjVlisp Model. In Proc. OOPSLA Conf., pages 156–167, October 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Ferber. Computational Reflection in Class Based Object-Oriented Languages. In Proc. OOPSLA Conf., pages 317–326, October 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Foote and R.E. Johnson. Reflective Facilities in Smalltalk-80. In Proc. OOPSLA Conf., pages 327–335, October 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Goldberg and D. Robson. Smalltalk-80: The Language. Addison-Wesley, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Irani. Implementation Design and Development of the TIGUKAT Object Model. Master's thesis, Dept. of Comp. Sci., University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 1993. Available as University of Alberta Technical Report TR93-10.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Maes. Concepts and Experiments in Computational Reflection. In Proc. OOPSLA Conf., pages 147–155, October 1987.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Masuhara, S. Matsuoka, T. Wantanabe, and A. Yonezawa. Object-Oriented Concurrent Reflective Languages can be Implemented Efficiently. In Proc. OOPSLA Conf, pages 127–144, October 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.J. Peters, A. Lipka, M.T. özsu, and D. Szafron. An Extensible Query Model and Its Languages for a Uniform Behavioral Object Management System. In Proc. of the Second Int'l. Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 403–412, November 1993. A full version of this paper is available as University of Alberta Technical Report TR93-01.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.J. Peters and M.T. özsu. Reflection in a Uniform Behavioral Object Model. In Proc. of the 12th Int'l Conf. on Entity-Relationship Approach, pages 37–49, December 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.J. Peters, M.T. özsu, and D. Szafron. TIGUKAT: An Object Model for Query and View Support in Object Database Systems. Technical Report TR92-14, Dept. of Comp. Sci., University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, October 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Randal J. Peters
    • 1
  • M. Tamer özsu
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Database Systems Research Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations