Assertion-based encapsulation, object invariants and simulations

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 3657 LNCS, Issue , 2005, Pages 251-273

  Naumann, David A ^a  

^a Stevens Institute of Technology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER SYSTEMS PROGRAMMING; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INVARIANCE;

ASSERTION-BASED ENCAPSULATION; MODULAR REASONING; OBJECT INVARIANTS;

OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING;

EID: 33646050646     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11561163_11     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (53)

1. J. Aldrich and C. Chambers. Ownership domains: Separating aliasing policy from mechanism. In European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), pages 1-25, 2004.
2. A. Banerjee and D: A. Naumann. Ownership confinement ensures representation independence for object-oriented programs. Journal of the ACM, 2002. Accepted, revision pending. Extended version of [3].
3. A. Banerjee and D. A. Naumann. Representation independence, confinement and access control. In ACM Symp. on Princ. of Program. Long: (POPL), pages 166-177, 2002.
4. A. Banerjee and D. A. Naumann. State based ownership, reentrance, and encapsulation. In European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), 2005. To appear.
5. M. Barnett, R. DeLine, M. Fähndrich, K. R. M. Leino, and W. Schulte. Verification of object-oriented programs with invariants. Journal of Object Technology, 3(6):27-56, 2004. Special issue: ECOOP, 2003 workshop on Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs.
6. M. Barnett, K. R. M. Leino, and W.; Schulte: The Spec# programming system: An overview. In CASSIS post-proceedings, 2004.
7. M. Barnett and D. A. Naumann. Friends need a bit more: Maintaining invariants over shared state. In D. Kozen, editor, Mathematics of Program Construction, pages 54-84, 2004.
8. G. Bierman and M. Parkinson. Separation logic and abstraction. In ACM Symp. on Princ. of Program. Lang. (POPL), pages 247-258, 2005.
9. L. Birkedal and N. Torp-Smith. Higher order separation logic and abstraction. Submitted., Feb. 2005.
10. P. Borba, A. Sampaio, A. Cavalcanti, and M. Cornélio. Algebraic reasoning for object-oriented programming. Sci. Comput. Programming, 52(1-3):53-100, 2004.
11. P. H. M. Borba, A. C. A. Sampaio, and M. L. Cornélio. A refinement algebra for object-oriented programming. In L. Cardelli, editor, European Conference on Object-oriented Programming (ECOOP), number 2743 in LNCS, pages 457-482, 2003.
12. C. Boyapati, R. Lee, and M. Rinard. Ownership types for safe programming: Preventing data races and deadlocks. In OOPSLA, 2002.
13. C. Boyapati, B. Liskov, and L. Shrira. Ownership types for object encapsulation. In ACM Symp. on Princ. of Program. Lang. (POPL), pages 213-223, 2003.
14. C. Calcagno, P. O'Hearn, and R. Bornat. Program logic and equivalence in the presence of garbage collection. Theoretical Comput. Sci., 298(3):557-581, 2003.
15. A. L. C. Cavalcanti and D. A. Naumann. Forward simulation for data refinement of classes. In L. Eriksson and P. A. Lindsay, editors, Formal Methods Europe, volume 2391 of LNCS, pages 471-490, 2002.
16. D. Clarke. Object ownership and containment. Dissertation, Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia, 2001.
17. D. G. Clarke, J. Noble, and J. M. Potter. Simple ownership types for object containment. In J. L. Knudsen, editor, ECOOP 2001 - Object Oriented Programming, 2001.
18. F. de Boer and C. Pierik. Computer-aided specification and verification of annotated object-oriented programs. In B. Jacobs and A. Rensink, editors, Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems, pages 163-177, 2002.
19. W.-P. de Roever and K. Engelhardt. Data Refinement: Model-Oriented Proof Methods and their Comparison. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
20. R. DeLine and M. Fähndrich. Enforcing high-level protocols in low-level software. In ACM Conf. on Program. Lang. Design and Implementation (PLDI), pages 59-69, 2001.
21. D. L. Detlefs, K. R. M. Leino, and G. Nelson. Wrestling with rep exposure. Research 156, DEC Systems Research Center, 1998.
22. E. Gamma, R. Helm, R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, 1995.
23. C. A. R. Hoare. Proofs of correctness of data representations. Acta Inf., 1:271-281, 1972.
24. B. Jacobs, J. Kiniry, and M. Warnier. Java program verification challenges. In F. de Boer, M. Bonsangue, S. Graf, and W.-P. de Roever, editors, Formal Methods for Components and Objects (FMCO 2002), LNCS.
25. B. Jacobs, K. R. M. Leino, and W. Schulte. Multithreaded object-oriented programs with invariants. In SAVCBS, 2004.
26. G. T. Leavens, Y. Cheon, C. Clifton, C. Ruby, and D. R. Cok. How the design of JML accommodates both runtime assertion checking and formal verification. In F. S. de Boer, M. M. Bonsangue, S. Graf, and W.-P. de Roever, editors, Formal Methods for Components and Objects (FMCO 2002), volume 2852 of LNCS, pages 262-284. 2003.
27. K. R. M. Leino and P. Müller. Object invariants in dynamic contexts. In European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), pages 491-516, 2004.
28. K. R. M. Leino and P. Müller. Modular verification of static class invariants. In Formal Methods, 2005.
29. B. Liskov and J. Guttag. Abstraction and Specification in Program Development. MIT Press, 1986.
30. B. H. Liskov and J. M. Wing. A behavioral notion of subtyping. ACM Trans. Prag. Lang. Syst., 16(6), 1994.
31. N. Lynch and F. Vaandrager, Forward and backward simulations part I: Untimed systems. Information and Computation, 121(2), 1995.
32. B. Meyer. Object-oriented Software Construction. Prentice Hall, New York, second edition, 1997.
33. R. Milner. An algebraic definition of simulation between programs. In Proceedings of Second Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 481-489, 1971.
34. J. C. Mitchell. Representation independence and data abstraction. In ACM Symp. on Princ. of Program. Lang. (POPL), pages 263-276, 1986.
35. P. Müller. Modular Specification and Verification of Object-Oriented Programs, volume 2262 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 2002.
36. P. Müller, A. Poetzsch-Heffter, and G. T. Leavens. Modular invariants for layered object structures. Technical Report 424, Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, 2004.
37. D. A. Naumann. Ideal models for pointwise relational and state-free imperative programming. In H. Sondergaard, editor, ACM International Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, pages 4-15, 2001.
38. D. A. Naumann. Patterns and lax lambda laws for relational and imperative programming. Technical Report 2001-2, Computer Science, Stevens Institute of Technology, 2001.
39. D. A. Naumann. Soundness of data refinement for a higher order imperative language. Theoretical Comput. Sci., 278(1-2):271-301, 2002.
40. D. A. Naumann and M. Barnett, Towards imperative modules: Reasoning about invariants and sharing of mutable state (extended abstract). In IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pages 313-323, 2004.
41. P. O'Hearn, H. Yang, and J. Reynolds. Separation and information hiding. In ACM Symp. on Princ. of Program. Lang. (POPL), pages 268-280, 2004.
42. P. W. O'Hearn and R. D. Tennent. Parametricity and local variables. Journal of the ACM, 42(3):658-709, 1995.
43. C. Pierik, D. Clarke, and F. S. de Boer. Controlling object allocation using creation guards. In Formal Methods 2005, 2005.
44. C. Pierik and F de Boer. On behavioral subtyping and completeness. In ECOOP Workshop on Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs. 2005. To appear.
45. C. Pierik and F. S. de Boer. A proof outline logic for object-oriented programming. Theoretical Comput. Sci., 2005. to appear.
46. A. M. Pitts. Reasoning about local variables with operationally-based logical relations. In P. W. O'Hearn and R. D. Tennent, editors, Algol-Like Languages, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 173-193, Birkhauser, 1997.
47. Reprinted from Proceedings Eleventh Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Brunswick, NJ, July 1996, pp 152-163.
48. A. M. Pitts. Parametric polymorphism and operational equivalence. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 10:321-359, 2000.
49. G. Plotkia Lambda definability and logical relations. Technical Report SAI-RM-4, University of Edinburgh, School of Artificial Intelligence, 1973.
50. Rehof and Mogensen. Tractable constraints in finite semilattices. Sci. Comput. Programming, 1996.
51. J. C. Reynolds. Separation logic: a logic for shared mutable data structures. In LICS, pages 55-74, 2002.
52. C. Skalka and S. Smith. Static use-based object confinement. Springer International Journal of Information Security, 4(1-2), 2005.
53. C. Szyperski, D. Gruntz, and S. Murer. Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming. ACM Press and Addison-Wesley, NY, second edition, 2002.