ACM Digital Library home
ACM home
Advanced Search
research-article
Open Access

Foundations of Session Types and Behavioural Contracts

Publication: ACM Computing SurveysApril 2016 Article No.: 3 https://doi.org/10.1145/2873052
  • 90citation
  • 1,711
    • Downloads
Metrics
Total Citations90
Total Downloads1,711
Last 12 Months354
Last 6 weeks36
ACM Computing Surveys
Volume 49, Issue 1
July 2016
PreviousArticleNextArticle

Abstract

Behavioural type systems, usually associated to concurrent or distributed computations, encompass concepts such as interfaces, communication protocols, and contracts, in addition to the traditional input/output operations. The behavioural type of a software component specifies its expected patterns of interaction using expressive type languages, so types can be used to determine automatically whether the component interacts correctly with other components. Two related important notions of behavioural types are those of session types and behavioural contracts. This article surveys the main accomplishments of the last 20 years within these two approaches.

References

  1. Martín Abadi and Luca Cardelli. 1996. A Theory of Objects. Springer, Berlin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Lucia Acciai and Michele Boreale. 2008. Responsiveness in process calculi. Theor. Comput. Sci. 409, 1 (2008), 59--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Lucia Acciai and Michele Boreale. 2010. Spatial and behavioral types in the pi-calculus. Inform. Comput. 208, 10 (2010), 1118--1153.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Lucia Acciai, Michele Boreale, and Gianluigi Zavattaro. 2010. On the relationship between spatial logics and behavioral simulations. In FOSSACS (LNCS), Vol. 6014. Springer, Berlin, 146--160.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Pedro Baltazar, Luís Caires, Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos, and Hugo Torres Vieira. 2012a. A type system for flexible role assignment in multiparty communicating systems. In TGC (LNCS), Vol. 8191. Springer, Berlin, 82--96.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Pedro Baltazar, Dimitris Mostrous, and Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos. 2012b. Linearly refined session types. In LINEARITY (EPTCS), Vol. 101. Open Publishing Association, Sydney, 38--49.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Franco Barbanera and Ugo de’Liguoro. 2010. Two notions of sub-behaviour for session-based client/server systems. In PPDP. ACM, New York, NY, 155--164.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Franco Barbanera, Mariangiola Dezani-Ciancaglini, and Ugo de’Liguoro. 1995. Intersection and union types: Syntax and semantics. Inform. Comput. 119, 2 (1995), 202--230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Henk Barendregt, Mario Coppo, and Mariangiola Dezani-Ciancaglini. 1983. A filter lambda model and the completeness of type assignment. J. Symb. Log. 48, 4 (1983), 931--940.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Henk Barendregt, Wil Dekkers, and Richard Statman. 2013. Lambda Calculus With Types. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Massimo Bartoletti, Pierpaolo Degano, Gian Luigi Ferrari, and Roberto Zunino. 2008. Semantics-based design for secure web services. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 34, 1 (2008), 33--49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Massimo Bartoletti, Julien Lange, Alceste Scalas, and Roberto Zunino. 2015. Choreographies in the wild. Sci. Comput. Program. 109 (2015), 36--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Massimo Bartoletti, Alceste Scalas, Emilio Tuosto, and Roberto Zunino. 2013. Honesty by typing. In FMOODS/FORTE (LNCS), Vol. 7892. Springer, Berlin, 305--320.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Massimo Bartoletti, Emilio Tuosto, and Roberto Zunino. 2012a. Contract-oriented computing in CO2. Sci. Ann. Comp. Sci. 22, 1 (2012), 5--60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Massimo Bartoletti, Emilio Tuosto, and Roberto Zunino. 2012b. On the realizability of contracts in dishonest systems. In COORDINATION (LNCS), Vol. 7274. Springer, Berlin, 245--260.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin Berger, Kohei Honda, and Nobuko Yoshida. 2005. Genericity and the pi-calculus. Acta Inf. 42, 2--3 (2005), 83--141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Giovanni Bernardi. 2013. Behavioural Equivalences for Web Services. Ph.D. Dissertation. Trinity College Dublin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Giovanni Bernardi and Matthew Hennessy. 2012. Modelling session types using contracts. In SAC. ACM, New York, NY, 1941--1946.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Giovanni Bernardi and Matthew Hennessy. 2013. Compliance and testing preorders differ. In SEFM Workshops (LNCS), Vol. 8368. Springer, Berlin, 69--81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Giovanni Bernardi and Matthew Hennessy. 2014. Using higher-order contracts to model session types (extended abstract). In CONCUR (LNCS), Vol. 8704. Springer, Berlin, 387--401.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lorenzo Bettini, Sara Capecchi, Mariangiola Dezani-Ciancaglini, Elena Giachino, and Betti Venneri. 2008. Session and union types for object oriented programming. In Concurrency, Graphs and Models (LNCS), Vol. 5065. Springer, Berlin, 659--680.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Laura Bocchi, Kohei Honda, Emilio Tuosto, and Nobuko Yoshida. 2010. A theory of design-by-contract for distributed multiparty interactions. In CONCUR (LNCS), Vol. 6269. Springer, Berlin, 162--176.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Laura Bocchi, Julien Lange, and Emilio Tuosto. 2012. Three algorithms and a methodology for amending contracts for choreographies. Sci. Ann. Comp. Sci. 22, 1 (2012), 61--104.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Eduardo Bonelli, Adriana B. Compagnoni, and Elsa L. Gunter. 2005. Typechecking safe process synchronization. In FGUC (ENTCS), Vol. 138. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 3--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Michele Boreale, Roberto Bruni, Luís Caires, Rocco De Nicola, Ivan Lanese, Michele Loreti, Francisco Martins, Ugo Montanari, António Ravara, Davide Sangiorgi, Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos, and Gianluigi Zavattaro. 2006. SCC: A service centered calculus. In WS-FM (LNCS), Vol. 4184. Springer, Berlin, 38--57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Michele Boreale, Roberto Bruni, Rocco De Nicola, and Michele Loreti. 2008. Sessions and pipelines for structured service programming. In FMOODS (LNCS), Vol. 5051. Springer, Berlin, 19--38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Gérard Boudol. 1997. Typing the use of resources in a concurrent calculus. In ASIAN (LNCS), Vol. 1345. Springer, Berlin, 239--253.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Mario Bravetti and Gianluigi Zavattaro. 2007. Towards a unifying theory for choreography conformance and contract compliance. In Software Composition (LNCS), Vol. 4829. Springer, Berlin, 34--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Mario Bravetti and Gianluigi Zavattaro. 2008a. Contract compliance and choreography conformance in the presence of message queues. In WS-FM (LNCS), Vol. 5387. Springer, Berlin, 37--54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Mario Bravetti and Gianluigi Zavattaro. 2008b. A foundational theory of contracts for multi-party service composition. Fundam. Inform. 89, 4 (2008), 451--478.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Mario Bravetti and Gianluigi Zavattaro. 2009a. Contract-based discovery and composition of web services. In SFM (LNCS), Vol. 5569. Springer, Berlin, 261--295.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Mario Bravetti and Gianluigi Zavattaro. 2009b. A theory of contracts for strong service compliance. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 19, 3 (2009), 601--638.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Ed Brinksma, Giuseppe Scollo, and Chris Steenbergen. 1995. Lotos specifications, their implementations and their tests. In Conformance Testing Methodologies and Architectures for OSI Protocols. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 468--479.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Antonio Brogi, Carlos Canal, and Ernesto Pimentel. 2004. Behavioural types and component adaptation. In AMAST (LNCS), Vol. 3116. Springer, Berlin, 42--56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Roberto Bruni and Leonardo Gaetano Mezzina. 2008. Types and deadlock freedom in a calculus of services, sessions and pipelines. In AMAST (LNCS), Vol. 5140. Springer, Berlin, 100--115.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Tevfik Bultan and Xiang Fu. 2007. Specification of realizable service conversations using collaboration diagrams. In SOCA. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 122--132.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Nadia Busi, Roberto Gorrieri, Claudio Guidi, Roberto Lucchi, and Gianluigi Zavattaro. 2005. Choreography and orchestration: A synergic approach for system design. In ICSOC (LNCS), Vol. 3826. Springer, Berlin, 228--240.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Luís Caires. 2008. Spatial-behavioral types for concurrency and resource control in distributed systems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 402, 2--3 (2008), 120--141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Luís Caires, Jorge A. Pérez, Frank Pfenning, and Bernardo Toninho. 2013. Behavioral polymorphism and parametricity in session-based communication. In ESOP (LNCS), Vol. 7792. Springer, Berlin, 330--349.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Luís Caires and Frank Pfenning. 2010. Session types as intuitionistic linear propositions. In CONCUR (LNCS), Vol. 6269. Springer, Berlin, 222--236.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Luís Caires, Frank Pfenning, and Bernardo Toninho. 2015. Linear logic propositions as session types. (unpublished).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Luís Caires and João Costa Seco. 2013. The type discipline of behavioral separation. In POPL. ACM, New York, NY, 275--286.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Luís Caires and Hugo Torres Vieira. 2010. Conversation types. Theor. Comput. Sci. 411, 51--52 (2010), 4399--4440.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Sara Capecchi, Elena Giachino, and Nobuko Yoshida. 2010. Global escape in multiparty sessions. In FSTTCS (LIPIcs), Vol. 8. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 338--351.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Marco Carbone. 2009. Session-based choreography with exceptions. In PLACES (ENTCS). Elsevier, Amsterdam, 35--55.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Marco Carbone, Kohei Honda, and Nobuko Yoshida. 2008. Structured interactional exceptions in session types. In CONCUR (LNCS), Vol. 5201. Springer, Berlin, 402--417.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Marco Carbone and Fabrizio Montesi. 2013. Deadlock-freedom-by-design: Multiparty asynchronous global programming. In POPL. ACM, New York, NY, 263--274.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Samuele Carpineti, Giuseppe Castagna, Cosimo Laneve, and Luca Padovani. 2006. A formal account of contracts for web services. In WS-FM (LNCS), Vol. 4184. Springer, Berlin, 148--162.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Cyril Carrez, Alessandro Fantechi, and Elie Najm. 2003. Behavioural contracts for a sound assembly of components. In FORTE (LNCS), Vol. 2767. Springer, Berlin, 111--126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Giuseppe Castagna, Mariangiola Dezani-Ciancaglini, Elena Giachino, and Luca Padovani. 2009a. Foundations of session types. In PPDP. ACM, Berlin, 219--230.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Giuseppe Castagna, Mariangiola Dezani-Ciancaglini, and Luca Padovani. 2012. On global types and multi-party sessions. Logical Methods Comput. Sci. 8, 1, Article 24, 45 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Giuseppe Castagna, Nils Gesbert, and Luca Padovani. 2009b. A theory of contracts for Web services. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 31, 5, Article 19, 61 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Giuseppe Castagna and Luca Padovani. 2009. Contracts for mobile processes. In CONCUR (LNCS), Vol. 5710. Springer, Berlin, 211--228.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Samir Chouali and Ahmed Hammad. 2011. Formal verification of components assembly based on SysML and interface automata. ISSE 7, 4 (2011), 265--274.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Samir Chouali, Sebti Mouelhi, and Hassan Mountassir. 2010. Adapting component behaviours using interface automata. In EUROMICRO-SEAA. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 119--122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Rance Cleaveland and Matthew Hennessy. 1993. Testing equivalence as a bisimulation equivalence. Formal Asp. Comput. 5, 1 (1993), 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Jean-Louis Colaço, Marc Pantel, Fabien Dagnat, and Patrick Sallé. 1999. Static safety analysis for non-uniform service availability in actors. In FMOODS (IFIP Conference Proceedings), Vol. 139. Kluwer, Amsterdam, 371--386.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Jean-Louis Colaço, Mark Pantel, and Patrick Sallé. 1997. A set-constraint-based analysis of actors. In FMOODS. Chapman & Hall, London, 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Mario Coppo, Mariangiola Dezani-Ciancaglini, Luca Padovani, and Nobuko Yoshida. 2013. Inference of global progress properties for dynamically interleaved multiparty sessions. In COORDINATION (LNCS), Vol. 7890. Springer, Berlin, 45--59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Mario Coppo, Mariangiola Dezani-Ciancaglini, Nobuko Yoshida, and Luca Padovani. 2016. Global progress for dynamically interleaved multiparty sessions. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 26 (2016), 238--302.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Mario Coppo and Alberto Ferrari. 1993. Type inference, abstract interpretation and strictness analysis. Theor. Comput. Sci. 121, 1&2 (1993), 113--143.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Luís Cruz-Filipe, Ivan Lanese, Francisco Martins, António Ravara, and Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos. 2008. Behavioural theory at work: Program transformations in a service-centred calculus. In FMOODS (LNCS), Vol. 5051. Springer, Berlin, 59--77.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Luís Cruz-Filipe, Ivan Lanese, Francisco Martins, António Ravara, and Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos. 2014. The stream-based service-centered calculus: A foundation for service-oriented programming. Formal Aspects Comput. 26, 5 (2014), 865--918.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Ornela Dardha, Elena Giachino, and Davide Sangiorgi. 2012. Session types revisited. In PPDP. ACM, New York, NY, 139--150.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Luca de Alfaro and Thomas A. Henzinger. 2001. Interface automata. In ESEC-FSE. ACM, New York, NY, 109--120.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Rocco De Nicola and Matthew Hennessy. 1984. Testing equivalences for processes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 34 (1984), 83--133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Robert DeLine and Manuel Fähndrich. 2004. Typestates for objects. In ECOOP (LNCS), Vol. 3086. Springer, Berlin, 465--490.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Romain Demangeon, Daniel Hirschkoff, and Davide Sangiorgi. 2010. Termination in impure concurrent languages. In CONCUR (LNCS), Vol. 6269. Springer, Berlin, 328--342.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Romain Demangeon and Kohei Honda. 2011. Full abstraction in a subtyped pi-calculus with linear types. In CONCUR (LNCS), Vol. 6901. Springer, Berlin, 280--296.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Pierre-Malo Deniélou and Nobuko Yoshida. 2011. Dynamic multirole session types. In POPL. ACM, 435--446.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Pierre-Malo Deniélou and Nobuko Yoshida. 2013. Multiparty compatibility in communicating automata: Characterisation and synthesis of global session types. In ICALP (2) (LNCS), Vol. 7966. Springer, Berlin, 174--186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Henry DeYoung, Luís Caires, Frank Pfenning, and Bernardo Toninho. 2012. Cut reduction in linear logic as asynchronous session-typed communication. In CSL (LIPIcs), Vol. 16. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 228--242.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Mariangiola Dezani-Ciancaglini, Ugo de’Liguoro, and Nobuko Yoshida. 2007. On progress for structured communications. In TGC (LNCS), Vol. 4912. Springer, Berlin, 257--275.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Mariangiola Dezani-Ciancaglini, Elena Giachino, Sophia Drossopoulou, and Nobuko Yoshida. 2006. Bounded session types for object oriented languages. In FMCO (LNCS), Vol. 4709. Springer, Berlin, 207--245.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Mariangiola Dezani-Ciancaglini, Furio Honsell, and Yoko Motohama. 2005. Compositional characterisations of lambda-terms using intersection types. Theor. Comput. Sci. 340, 3 (2005), 459--495.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Mariangiola Dezani-Ciancaglini, Nobuko Yoshida, Alexander Ahern, and Sophia Drossopoulou. 2005. L-doos: A distributed object-oriented language with session types. In TGC (LNCS), Vol. 3705. Springer, Berlin, 299--318.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Joshua Dunfield. 2012. Elaborating intersection and union types. In ICFP. ACM, New York, NY, 17--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Joshua Dunfield and Frank Pfenning. 2003. Type assignment for intersections and unions in call-by-value languages. In FoSSaCS (LNCS), Vol. 2620. Springer, Berlin, 250--266.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Cédric Fournet, C. A. R. Hoare, Sriram K. Rajamani, and Jakob Rehof. 2004. Stuck-free conformance. In CAV (LNCS), Vol. 3114. Springer, Berlin, 242--254.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Tim Freeman and Frank Pfenning. 1991. Refinement types for ML. In PLDI. ACM, New York, NY, 268--277.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Maxime Gamboni. 2010. Statically Proving Behavioural Properties in the π-Calculus via Dependency Analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation. Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Maxime Gamboni and António Ravara. 2010. Responsive choice in mobile processes. In TGC (LNCS), Vol. 6084. Springer, Berlin, 135--152.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Simon J. Gay. 2008. Bounded polymorphism in session types. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 18, 5 (2008), 895--930.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. Simon J. Gay, Nils Gesbert, and António Ravara. 2014. Session types as generic process types. In EXPRESS/SOS (EPTCS), Vol. 160. 94--110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Simon J. Gay and Malcolm Hole. 1999. Types and subtypes for client-server interactions. In ESOP (LNCS), Vol. 1576. Springer, Berlin, 74--90.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Simon J. Gay and Malcolm Hole. 2005. Subtyping for session types in the pi calculus. Acta Inf. 42, 2--3 (2005), 191--225.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  87. Simon J. Gay and Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos. 2010. Linear type theory for asynchronous session types. J. Funct. Program. 20, 1 (2010), 19--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. Simon J. Gay, Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos, António Ravara, Nils Gesbert, and Alexandre Z. Caldeira. 2010. Modular session types for distributed object-oriented programming. In POPL. ACM, New York, NY, 299--312.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. Jean-Yves Girard. 1987. Linear logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 50 (1987), 1--102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  90. Jean-Yves Girard and Yves Lafont. 1987. Linear logic and lazy computation. In TAPSOFT(2) (LNCS), Vol. 250. Springer, Berlin, 52--66.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. Marco Giunti. 2011. A type checking algorithm for qualified session types. In WWV (EPTCS), Vol. 61. Open Publishing Association, 96--114.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. Marco Giunti and Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos. 2016. Linearity, session types and the Pi calculus. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 26 (2016), 206--237.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  93. Andrew D. Gordon and Alan Jeffrey. 2003. Typing Correspondence Assertions for Communication Protocols. Theor. Comput Sci. 300, 1--3 (2003), 379--409.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. Matthew Goto, Radha Jagadeesan, Alan Jeffrey, Corin Pitcher, and James Riely. 2016. An extensible approach to session polymorphism. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 26, 465--509.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  95. Mohamed G. Gouda, Eric G. Manning, and Yao-Tin Yu. 1984. On the progress of communications between two finite state machines. Inform. Control 63, 3 (1984), 200--216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  96. Christian Haack and Alan Jeffrey. 2005. Timed spi-calculus with types for secrecy and authenticity. In CONCUR (LNCS), Vol. 3653. Springer, Berlin, 202--216.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. Carl Hewitt, Peter Bishop, and Richard Steiger. 1973. A universal modular actor formalism for artificial intelligence. In IJCAI. William Kaufmann, 235--245.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  98. C. A. R. Hoare. 1985. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  99. Kohei Honda. 1993. Types for dyadic interaction. In CONCUR (LNCS), Vol. 715. Springer, Berlin, 509--523.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  100. Kohei Honda, Eduardo R. B. Marques, Francisco Martins, Nicholas Ng, Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos, and Nobuko Yoshida. 2012. Verification of MPI programs using session types. In EuroMPI (LNCS), Vol. 7490. Springer, Berlin, 291--293.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  101. Kohei Honda, Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos, and Makoto Kubo. 1998. Language primitives and type discipline for structured communication-based programming. In ESOP (LNCS), Vol. 1381. Springer, Berlin, 122--138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  102. Kohei Honda, Nobuko Yoshida, and Marco Carbone. 2008. Multiparty asynchronous session types. In POPL. ACM, New York, NY, 273--284.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  103. Hans Hüttel. 2011. Typed ψ-calculi. In CONCUR (LNCS), Vol. 6901. Springer, Berlin, 265--279.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  104. Hans Hüttel. 2013. Types for resources in ψ-calculi. In TGC (LNCS), Vol. 8358. Springer, Berlin, 83--102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  105. Hans Hüttel, Naoki Kobayashi, and Takashi Suto. 2009. Undecidable equivalences for basic parallel processes. Inform. Comput. 207, 7 (2009), 812--829.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  106. Atsushi Igarashi and Naoki Kobayashi. 2000. Type reconstruction for linear pi-calculus with I/O subtyping. Inform. Comput. 161, 1 (2000), 1--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  107. Atsushi Igarashi and Naoki Kobayashi. 2004. A generic type system for the pi-calculus. Theor. Comput. Sci. 311, 1--3 (2004), 121--163.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  108. Atsushi Igarashi and Hideshi Nagira. 2007. Union types for object-oriented programming. J. Object Technol. 6, 2 (2007), 47--68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  109. Keigo Imai, Shoji Yuen, and Kiyoshi Agusa. 2010. Session type inference in Haskell. In PLACES (EPTCS), Vol. 69. Open Publishing Association, 74--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  110. Nickolas Kavantzas, David Burdett, Gregory Ritzinger, Tony Fletcher, Yves Lafon, and Charlton Barreto. 2005. Web Services Choreography Description Language Version 1.0. Technical Report. W3C. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-cdl-10/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  111. Naoki Kobayashi. 1998. A partially deadlock-free typed process calculus. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 20, 2 (1998), 436--482.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  112. Naoki Kobayashi. 2000. Type systems for concurrent processes: From deadlock-freedom to livelock-freedom, time-boundedness. In IFIP TCS (LNCS), Vol. 1872. Springer, Berlin, 365--389.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  113. Naoki Kobayashi. 2002. A type system for lock-free processes. Inform. Comput. 177, 2 (2002), 122--159.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  114. Naoki Kobayashi. 2003. Type systems for concurrent programs. In Formal Methods at the Crossroads. From Panacea to Foundational Support. LNCS, Vol. 2757. Springer, Berlin, 439--453. Extended version available at http://www-kb.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/∼koba/papers/tutorial-type-extended.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  115. Naoki Kobayashi. 2005. Type-based information flow analysis for the pi-calculus. Acta Inf. 42, 4--5 (2005), 291--347.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  116. Naoki Kobayashi and C.-H. Luke Ong. 2009. A type system equivalent to the modal mu-calculus model checking of higher-order recursion schemes. In LICS. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 179--188.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  117. Naoki Kobayashi, Benjamin C. Pierce, and David N. Turner. 1996. Linearity and the pi-calculus. In POPL. ACM, New York, NY, 358--371.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  118. Naoki Kobayashi, Benjamin C. Pierce, and David N. Turner. 1999. Linearity and the pi-calculus. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 21, 5 (1999), 914--947.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  119. Naoki Kobayashi, Shin Saito, and Eijiro Sumii. 2000. An implicitly-typed deadlock-free process calculus. In CONCUR (LNCS), Vol. 1877. Springer, Berlin, 489--503.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  120. Naoki Kobayashi and Davide Sangiorgi. 2010. A hybrid type system for lock-freedom of mobile processes. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 32, 5, Article 16 (2010), 49 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  121. Dimitrios Kouzapas, Raymond Hu, Nobuko Yoshida, and Kohei Honda. 2016. On asynchronous eventful session semantics. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 26 (2016), 303--364.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  122. Ivan Lanese, Claudio Guidi, Fabrizio Montesi, and Gianluigi Zavattaro. 2008. Bridging the gap between interaction- and process-oriented choreographies. In SEFM. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 323--332.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  123. Ivan Lanese, Francisco Martins, Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos, and António Ravara. 2007. Disciplining orchestration and conversation in service-oriented computing. In SEFM. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 305--314.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  124. Ivan Lanese, Fabrizio Montesi, and Gianluigi Zavattaro. 2013. Amending choreographies. In WWV (EPTCS), Vol. 123. Open Publishing Association, 34--48.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  125. Cosimo Laneve and Luca Padovani. 2007. The must preorder revisited. In CONCUR (LNCS), Vol. 4703. Springer, Berlin, 212--225.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  126. Cosimo Laneve and Luca Padovani. 2013. An algebraic theory for web service contracts. In IFM (LNCS), Vol. 7940. Springer, Berlin, 301--315.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  127. Julien Lange and Emilio Tuosto. 2012. Synthesising choreographies from local session types. In CONCUR (LNCS), Vol. 7454. Springer, 225--239.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  128. Edward A. Lee and Yuhong Xiong. 2004. A behavioral type system and its application in Ptolemy II. Formal Asp. Comput. 16, 3 (2004), 210--237.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  129. Barbara Liskov and Jeannette M. Wing. 1994. A behavioral notion of subtyping. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 16, 6 (1994), 1811--1841.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  130. Hugo A. López, Eduardo R. B. Marques, Francisco Martins, Nicholas Ng, César Santos, Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos, and Nobuko Yoshida. 2015. Protocol-based verification of message-passing parallel programs. In OOPSLA. ACM, New York, NY, 280--298.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  131. Leonardo Gaetano Mezzina. 2008. How to infer finite session types in a calculus of services and sessions. In COORDINATION (LNCS), Vol. 5052. Springer, Berlin, 216--231.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  132. Robin Milner. 1992. Funtions as processes. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 2, 2 (1992), 119--141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  133. Robin Milner. 1993. The polyadic π-calculus: A tutorial. In Logic and Algebra of Specification. NATO ASI Series, Vol. 94. Springer, Berlin, 203--246.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  134. Robin Milner, Joachim Parrow, and David Walker. 1992. A calculus of mobile processes, I. Inform. Comput. 100, 1 (1992), 1--40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  135. Fabrizio Montesi and Nobuko Yoshida. 2013. Compositional choreographies. In CONCUR (LNCS), Vol. 8052. Springer, Berlin, 425--439.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  136. Dimitris Mostrous and Nobuko Yoshida. 2009. Session-based communication optimisation for higher-order mobile processes. In TLCA (LNCS), Vol. 5608. Springer, Berlin, 203--218.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  137. Dimitris Mostrous, Nobuko Yoshida, and Kohei Honda. 2009. Global principal typing in partially commutative asynchronous sessions. In ESOP (LNCS), Vol. 5502. Springer, Berlin, 316--332.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  138. Mayur Naik and Jens Palsberg. 2005. A type system equivalent to a model checker. In ESOP (LNCS), Vol. 3444. Springer, Berlin, 374--388.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  139. Elie Najm and Abdelkrim Nimour. 1997. A calculus of object bindings. In FMOODS. Chapman & Hall, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  140. Elie Najm, Abdelkrim Nimour, and Jean-Bernard Stefani. 1999a. Guaranteeing liveness in an object calculus through behavioural typing. In FORTE (IFIP Conference Proceedings), Vol. 156. Kluwer, Amsterdam, 203--221.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  141. Elie Najm, Abdelkrim Nimour, and Jean-Bernard Stefani. 1999b. Infinite types for distributed object interfaces. In FMOODS (IFIP Conference Proceedings), Vol. 139. Kluwer, Amsterdam, 353--369.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  142. Nicholas Ng and Nobuko Yoshida. 2014. Pabble: Parameterised scribble for parallel programming. In PDP. IEEE Computer Society, 707--714.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  143. Flemming Nielson and Hanne Riis Nielson. 1993. From CML to process algebras. In CONCUR (LNCS), Vol. 715. Springer, Berlin, 493--508.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  144. Flemming Nielson and Hanne Riis Nielson. 1996. From CML to its process algebra. Theor. Comput. Sci. 155, 1 (1996), 179--219.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  145. Flemming Nielson, Hanne Riis Nielson, and Chris Hankin. 1999. Principles of Program Analysis. Springer, Berlin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  146. Oscar Nierstrasz. 1995. Regular types for active objects. In Object-Oriented Software Composition. Prentice Hall International, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 99--121.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  147. Luca Padovani. 2010a. Contract-based discovery of web services modulo simple orchestrators. Theor. Comput. Sci. 411, 37 (2010), 3328--3347.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  148. Luca Padovani. 2010b. Session types = intersection types + union types. In ITRS (EPTCS), Vol. 45. Open Publishing Association, 71--89.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  149. Luca Padovani. 2011. Fair subtyping for multi-party session types. In COORDINATION (LNCS), Vol. 6721. Springer, Berlin, 127--141.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  150. Luca Padovani. 2013a. Fair subtyping for open session types. In ICALP (2) (LNCS), Vol. 7966. Springer, Berlin, 373--384.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  151. Luca Padovani. 2013b. From lock freedom to progress using session types. In PLACES (EPTCS), Vol. 137. Open Publishing Association, 3--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  152. Luca Padovani. 2014. Deadlock and lock freedom in the linear π-calculus. In CSL-LICS. ACM, New York, NY, 72:1--72:10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  153. Frank Pfenning, Luís Caires, and Bernardo Toninho. 2011. Proof-carrying code in a session-typed process calculus. In CPP (LNCS), Vol. 7086. Springer, Berlin, 21--36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  154. Benjamin C. Pierce. 1991. Programming with Intersection Types, Union Types, and Polymorphism. Technical Report CMU-CS-91-106. CMU.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  155. Benjamin C. Pierce and Davide Sangiorgi. 1996. Typing and subtyping for mobile processes. Mathematical Struc. Comput. Sci. 6, 5 (1996), 409--453.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  156. Garrel Pottinger. 1980. A type assignment for the strongly normalizable lambda-terms. In To H. B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism. Academic Press, New York, NY, 561--577.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  157. Franz Puntigam. 2001a. State inference for dynamically changing interfaces. Comput. Lang. 27, 4 (2001), 163--202.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  158. Franz Puntigam. 2001b. Strong types for coordinating active objects. Concurr. Comput.: Practice Exp. 13, 4 (2001), 293--326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  159. Franz Puntigam and Christof Peter. 2001. Types for active objects with static deadlock prevention. Fundam. Inform. 48, 4 (2001), 315--341.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  160. António Ravara, Pedro Resende, and Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos. 2012. An algebra of behavioural types. Inform. Comput. 212 (2012), 64--91.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  161. António Ravara and Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos. 2000. Typing non-uniform concurrent objects. In CONCUR (LNCS), Vol. 1877. Springer, Berlin, 474--488.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  162. Jakob Rehof. 2013. Towards combinatory logic synthesis. In BEAT, Online Proceedings. 47--58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  163. Arend Rensink and Walter Vogler. 2007. Fair testing. Inform. Comput. 205, 2 (2007), 125--198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  164. John C. Reynolds. 1997. Design of the programming language Forsythe. In Algol-like Languages. Birkhäuser, Basel, 173--233.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  165. Davide Sangiorgi. 1996. Pi-calculus, internal mobility, and agent-passing calculi. Theor. Comput. Sci. 167, 1&2 (1996), 235--274.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  166. Davide Sangiorgi. 1998. An interpretation of typed objects into typed pi-calculus. Inform. Comput. 143, 1 (1998), 34--73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  167. Davide Sangiorgi. 1999. The name discipline of uniform receptiveness. Theor. Comput. Sci. 221, 1--2 (1999), 457--493.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  168. Davide Sangiorgi. 2006. Termination of processes. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 16, 1 (2006), 1--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  169. Robert E. Strom and Shaula Yemini. 1986. Typestate: A programming language concept for enhancing software reliability. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 12, 1 (1986), 157--171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  170. Joshua Sunshine, Karl Naden, Sven Stork, Jonathan Aldrich, and Éric Tanter. 2011. First-class state change in Plaid. In OOPSLA. ACM, New York, NY, 713--732.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  171. Alvaro Tasistro, Ernesto Copello, and Nora Szasz. 2012. Principal type scheme for session types. Int. J. Logic Comput. 3, 1 (2012), 34--43.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  172. Bernardo Toninho, Luís Caires, and Frank Pfenning. 2011. Dependent session types via intuitionistic linear type theory. In PPDP. ACM, New York, NY, 161--172.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  173. Bernardo Toninho, Luís Caires, and Frank Pfenning. 2012. Functions as session-typed processes. In FoSSaCS (LNCS), Vol. 7213. Springer, Berlin, 346--360.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  174. Bernardo Toninho, Luís Caires, and Frank Pfenning. 2013. Higher-order processes, functions, and sessions: A monadic integration. In ESOP (LNCS), Vol. 7792. Springer, Berlin, 350--369.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  175. Antonio Vallecillo, Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos, and António Ravara. 2006. Typing the behavior of software components using session types. Fundam. Inform. 73, 4 (2006), 583--598.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  176. Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos. 1994. Typed concurrent objects. In ECOOP (LNCS), Vol. 821. Springer, Berlin, 100--117.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  177. Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos. 2012. Fundamentals of session types. Inform. Comput. 217 (2012), 52--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  178. Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos, Simon Gay, and António Ravara. 2006. Typechecking a multithreaded functional language with session types. Theor. Comput. Sci. 368, 1--2 (2006), 64--87.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  179. Hugo Torres Vieira, Luís Caires, and João Costa Seco. 2008. The conversation calculus: A model of service-oriented computation. In ESOP (LNCS), Vol. 4960. Springer, Berlin, 269--283.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  180. Hugo Torres Vieira and Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos. 2013. Typing progress in communication-centred systems. In COORDINATION (LNCS), Vol. 7890. Springer, Berlin, 236--250.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  181. Jules Villard. 2011. Heaps and Hops. Ph.D. Dissertation. ENS Cachan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  182. Philip Wadler. 2012. Propositions as sessions. In ICFP. ACM, New York, NY, 273--286.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  183. Nobuko Yoshida, Martin Berger, and Kohei Honda. 2004. Strong normalisation in the pi-calculus. Inform. Comput. 191, 2 (2004), 145--202.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  184. Nobuko Yoshida, Pierre-Malo Deniélou, Andi Bejleri, and Raymond Hu. 2010. Parameterised multiparty session types. In FOSSACS (LNCS), Vol. 6014. Springer, Berlin, 128--145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  185. Nobuko Yoshida and Vasco Thudichum Vasconcelos. 2007. Language primitives and type discipline for structured communication-based programming revisited: Two systems for higher-order session communication. In SecReT (ENTCS), Vol. 171(4). Elsevier, Amsterdam, 73--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Foundations of Session Types and Behavioural Contracts

                Reviews

                Matthew Mark Huntbach

                We are familiar with the notion of types as classifying what a program component does and permissible use of the component. A type system will tell us that a method call must have arguments of particular types and guarantee that it will return a value of a particular type. This paper is a survey of work that goes beyond this, into type systems that classify in more detail possible interactions between program components. This is of particular relevance in concurrent computation where we might want to know not just the type of a single message that one component might send to another, but a pattern of interaction involving the interchange of several messages between two components. An example used throughout the paper to illustrate this is the pattern of interaction between a client and an ATM. One possible type of interaction is: !auth; !balance; __?__amount; !withdraw; !amount; (__?__dispense+__?__overdraft); !quit meaning the client first sends a request to be authorized to use the machine; then a request for the current balance, which is returned; then a request to withdraw, followed by the amount to be withdrawn, which is either dispensed or notice is given that it would result in an overdraft; and then the interaction is concluded. The paper gives a good introduction to the general principles and variations of this sort of typing, with a comprehensive set of references to the many recent papers published in this area. Online Computing Reviews Service

                Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

                Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

                Comments

                Login options

                Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                Sign in

                Full Access

                Get this Article

                PDF Format

                View or Download as a PDF file.

                PDF

                eReader

                View online with eReader.

                eReader
                View Issue’s Table of Contents
                About Cookies On This Site

                We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

                Learn more

                Got it!