Observational purity and encapsulation

Theoretical Computer Science

Volumn 376, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 205-224

  Naumann, David A ^a  

^a Stevens Institute of Technology   (United States)

Author keywords

Benevolent side effects; Information hiding; Specification and verification

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; DATA PRIVACY; REAL TIME SYSTEMS; SPECIFICATION LANGUAGES;

BENEVOLENT SIDE EFFECTS; INFORMATION HIDING; OBSERVATIONAL PURITY;

PUBLIC KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY;

EID: 34247472572     PISSN: 03043975     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tcs.2007.02.004     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. A. Banerjee, D.A. Naumann, Representation independence, confinement and access control, in: ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL, 2002, pp. 166-177
2. Banerjee A., and Naumann D.A. Ownership confinement ensures representation independence for object-oriented programs. Journal of the ACM 52 6 (2005) 894-960 (Extended version of [1])
3. Banerjee A., and Naumann D.A. Stack-based access control for secure information flow. Language Based Security. Journal of Functional Programming 15 2 (2005) 131-177 (special issue)
4. A. Banerjee, D.A. Naumann, State based ownership, reentrance, and encapsulation, in: European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, ECOOP, 2005, pp. 387-411
5. Barnett M., DeLine R., Fähndrich M., Leino K.R.M., and Schulte W. Verification of object-oriented programs with invariants. ECOOP 2003 Workshop on Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs. Journal of Object Technology 3 6 (2004) 27-56 (special issue)
6. Barnett M., Leino K.R.M., and Schulte W. The Spec# programming system: An overview. In: Barthe G., Burdy L., Huisman M., Lanet J.-L., and Muntean T. (Eds). Construction and Analysis of Safe, Secure, and Interoperable Smart Devices, International Workshop. CASSIS 2004. LNCS vol. 3362 (2005), Springer 49-69 Revised selected papers
7. M. Barnett, D.A. Naumann, W. Schulte, Q. Sun, 99.44% pure: Useful abstractions in specifications, in: ECOOP Workshop on Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs, FTfJP, Technical Report NIII-R0426, University of Nijmegen. 2004
8. M. Barnett, D.A. Naumann, W. Schulte, Q. Sun, Allowing state changes in specifications, in: International Conference on Emerging Trends in Information and Communication Security, ETRICS, in: Springer LNCS, vol. 3995, 2006, pp. 321-336. Extended version of [7]
9. G. Barthe, P.R. D'Argenio, T. Rezk, Secure information flow by self-composition, in: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, CSFW'04, 2004, pp. 100-114
10. N. Benton, Simple relational correctness proofs for static analyses and program transformations, in: ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL, 2004, pp. 14-25
11. C. Boyapati, B. Liskov, L. Shrira, Ownership types for object encapsulation, in: ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL, 2003, pp. 213-223
12. Calcagno C., O'Hearn P., and Bornat R. Program logic and equivalence in the presence of garbage collection. Theoretical Computer Science 298 3 (2003) 557-581
13. Cavalcanti A.L.C., and Naumann D.A. Forward simulation for data refinement of classes. In: Eriksson L., and Lindsay P.A. (Eds). Formal Methods Europe. LNCS vol. 2391 (2002), Springer 471-490
14. Clarke D., and Drossopoulou S. Ownership, encapsulation and the disjointness of type and effect. Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA) (2002) 292-310
15. Clarke D.G., Noble J., and Potter J.M. Simple ownership types for object containment. In: Knudsen J.L. (Ed). ECOOP 2001 - Object Oriented Programming (2001) 53-76
16. Cok D.R. Reasoning with specifications containing method calls and model fields. ECOOP 2004 Workshop FTfJP. Journal of Object Technology 4 8 (2005) 77-103 (special issue)
17. A. Darvas, P. Müller, Reasoning about method calls in interface specifications, in: ECOOP 2005 Workshop FTfJP, June 2006, Journal of Object Technology 5 (5) (2006) 59-85 (special issue)
18. de Roever W.-P., and Engelhardt K. Data Refinement: Model-Oriented Proof Methods and their Comparison (1998), Cambridge University Press
19. C. Flanagan, K.R.M. Leino, M. Lillibridge, G. Nelson, J.B. Saxe, R. Stata, Extended static checking for Java, in: ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI, 2002, pp. 234-245
20. Larch: Languages and tools for formal specification. In: Guttag J.V., and Horning J.J. (Eds). Texts and Monographs in Computer Science (1993), Springer-Verlag With Stephen J. Garland, Kevin D. Jones, Andrés Modet, and Jeannette M. Wing
21. He J., Hoare C.A.R., and Sanders J. Data refinement refined (resumé). European Symposium on Programming. LNCS vol. 213 (1986), Springer
22. Hoare C.A.R. An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Communications of the ACM 12 (1969) 576-580 583
23. Hoare C.A.R. Proofs of correctness of data representations. Acta Informatica 1 (1972) 271-281
24. Hogg J., Lea D., Wills A., deChampeaux D., and Holt R. The Geneva Convention on the treatment of object aliasing. OOPS Messenger 3 2 (1992) 11-16
25. Leavens G.T., Cheon Y., Clifton C., Ruby C., and Cok D.R. How the design of JML accommodates both runtime assertion checking and formal verification. In: de Boer F.S., Bonsangue M.M., Graf S., and de Roever W.-P. (Eds). Formal Methods for Components and Objects. FMCO 2002. LNCS vol. 2852 (2003), Springer 262-284
26. Leino K.R.M., and Nelson G. Data abstraction and information hiding. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 24 5 (2002) 491-553
27. Liskov B., and Guttag J. Abstraction and Specification in Program Development (1986), MIT Press
28. Meyer B. Object-oriented Software Construction. 2nd edition (1997), Prentice-Hall, New York
29. Mitchell J.C. Foundations for Programming Languages (1996), MIT Press
30. Müller P. Modular Specification and Verification of Object-Oriented Programs. LNCS vol. 2262 (2002), Springer
31. Naumann D.A. Observational purity and encapsulation. In: Cerioli M. (Ed). Fundamental Aspects of Software Engineering (FASE). LNCS vol. 3442 (2005), Springer 190-204
32. D.A. Naumann, From coupling relations to mated invariants for secure information flow and data abstraction, in: European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, ESORICS, in: Springer LNCS, vol. 4189, 2006, pp. 279-296
33. D.A. Naumann, M. Barnett, Towards imperative modules: Reasoning about invariants and sharing of mutable state (extended abstract), in: IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS, 2004, pp. 313-323
34. Naumann D.A., and Barnett M. Towards imperative modules: Reasoning about invariants and sharing of mutable state. Theoretical Computer Science 365 (2006) 143-168 Extended version of [33]
35. Pierik C., Clarke D., and de Boer F.S. Controlling object allocation using creation guards. Proceedings, Formal Methods. LNCS vol. 3582 (2005), Springer 59-74
36. Sabelfeld A., and Myers A.C. Language-based information-flow security. IEEE Journal of Selected Areas in Communications 21 1 (2003) 5-19
37. A. Sǎlcianu, M. Rinard, A combined pointer and purity analysis for Java programs, Tech. Rep. MIT-CSAIL-TR-949, Department of Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2004
38. Terauchi T., and Aiken A. Secure information flow as a safety problem. 12th International Static Analysis Symposium. SAS. LNCS vol. 3672 (2005), Springer 352-367
39. H. Yang, Relational separation logic, Theoretical Computer Science, 2007 (in press)