Comparing Deadlock-Free Session Typed Processes

Besides respecting prescribed protocols, communication-centric systems should never "get stuck". This requirement has been expressed by liveness properties such as progress or (dead)lock freedom. Several typing disciplines that ensure these properties for mobile processes have been propose...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ornela Dardha, Jorge A. Pérez
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Open Publishing Association 2015-08-01
Series:Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science
Online Access:http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.06707v1
id doaj-7bb869ad5fcf4c679449d2f88be97fe4
record_format Article
spelling doaj-7bb869ad5fcf4c679449d2f88be97fe42020-11-25T01:10:26ZengOpen Publishing AssociationElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science2075-21802015-08-01190Proc. EXPRESS/SOS 201511510.4204/EPTCS.190.1:3Comparing Deadlock-Free Session Typed ProcessesOrnela Dardha0Jorge A. Pérez1 University of Glasgow, United Kingdom University of Groningen, The Netherlands Besides respecting prescribed protocols, communication-centric systems should never "get stuck". This requirement has been expressed by liveness properties such as progress or (dead)lock freedom. Several typing disciplines that ensure these properties for mobile processes have been proposed. Unfortunately, very little is known about the precise relationship between these disciplines—and the classes of typed processes they induce. In this paper, we compare L and K, two classes of deadlock-free, session typed concurrent processes. The class L stands out for its canonicity: it results naturally from interpretations of linear logic propositions as session types. The class K, obtained by encoding session types into Kobayashi's usage types, includes processes not typable in other type systems. We show that L is strictly included in K. We also identify the precise condition under which L and K coincide. One key observation is that the degree of sharing between parallel processes determines a new expressiveness hierarchy for typed processes. We also provide a type-preserving rewriting procedure of processes in K into processes in L. This procedure suggests that, while effective, the degree of sharing is a rather subtle criteria for distinguishing typed processes.http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.06707v1
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ornela Dardha
Jorge A. Pérez
spellingShingle Ornela Dardha
Jorge A. Pérez
Comparing Deadlock-Free Session Typed Processes
Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science
author_facet Ornela Dardha
Jorge A. Pérez
author_sort Ornela Dardha
title Comparing Deadlock-Free Session Typed Processes
title_short Comparing Deadlock-Free Session Typed Processes
title_full Comparing Deadlock-Free Session Typed Processes
title_fullStr Comparing Deadlock-Free Session Typed Processes
title_full_unstemmed Comparing Deadlock-Free Session Typed Processes
title_sort comparing deadlock-free session typed processes
publisher Open Publishing Association
series Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science
issn 2075-2180
publishDate 2015-08-01
description Besides respecting prescribed protocols, communication-centric systems should never "get stuck". This requirement has been expressed by liveness properties such as progress or (dead)lock freedom. Several typing disciplines that ensure these properties for mobile processes have been proposed. Unfortunately, very little is known about the precise relationship between these disciplines—and the classes of typed processes they induce. In this paper, we compare L and K, two classes of deadlock-free, session typed concurrent processes. The class L stands out for its canonicity: it results naturally from interpretations of linear logic propositions as session types. The class K, obtained by encoding session types into Kobayashi's usage types, includes processes not typable in other type systems. We show that L is strictly included in K. We also identify the precise condition under which L and K coincide. One key observation is that the degree of sharing between parallel processes determines a new expressiveness hierarchy for typed processes. We also provide a type-preserving rewriting procedure of processes in K into processes in L. This procedure suggests that, while effective, the degree of sharing is a rather subtle criteria for distinguishing typed processes.
url http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.06707v1
work_keys_str_mv AT orneladardha comparingdeadlockfreesessiontypedprocesses
AT jorgeaperez comparingdeadlockfreesessiontypedprocesses
_version_ 1725174707197575168