Ashley, Thanks, will look into the references you've suggested.
H.Ozawa Ashley at Metamaxim wrote: > H. Ozawa wrote: > > > Eric, however, maybe thinking of a new paradigm shift toward service > > oriented programming language. Like application development shifted > > from flowcharts and Cobol to UML and Java/.Net, the next shift may > > offer new diagramming techniques and languages. I sure would like to > > hear more about it and would like to know if there is any project > that is > > attempting to build it. > > I don't know whether the work I have been doing is of interest in this > context, but it may be. So here is a short description and references > to some material. > > I have had a long standing interest in behaviour modelling, and > languages that support direct execution of such models. Recently I > have been working with colleagues on a concept called "Protocol > Modelling" that is based around the idea of composing partial > behavioural descriptions using the parallel composition ideas of CSP > (Tony Hoare's process algebra). > > This approach leads to a programming style in which partial > behavioural descriptions (which can, in theory, be built using any > notation you like) are combined in the manner of "mixins", giving an > expressive power that is similar to multiple inheritance. > > The challenge in developing the approach has been to allow these > mixins to be re-used safely across the definition of multiple > behavioural entities (be they objects or processes -- we don't really > distinguish between the two). The approach works well, but does lead > to a radically different view of what is meant by "inheritance" and > the mechanisms for achieving it. However, I think we are on the right > track, as attempts to include the inheritance of behaviour into > conventional inheritance schemes leads to nasty complications. > > The resultant paradigm for defining executable behaviour models is as > different from conventional OO as OO is different from 3GL. > > The following two papers will give you some idea of what we have been > doing. Both are referenced from the "News and White Papers" page of > the Metamaxim website (http://www.metamaxim.com/pages/news.htm): > > 1. The paper "State Machines as Mixins" (see "Metamaxim article in > The Journal of Object Technology" under January 2004) > 2. The paper "Protocol Modelling" (see "Formal Semantics" under > November 2004). > > The first of these is a more general motivation of the ideas -- please > read this one first. The second is an attempt to put the ideas on a > more formal footing. > > It is too early to say whether this approach has useful application to > SO (in particular, process modelling), but I suspect that it does. > > Rgds > Ashley > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
