article

Ownership confinement ensures representation independence for object-oriented programs

Authors:

Anindya Banerjee,

David A. NaumannAuthors Info & Claims

Journal of the ACM (JACM), Volume 52, Issue 6

Pages 894 - 960

https://doi.org/10.1145/1101821.1101824

Published: 01 November 2005 Publication History

Get Access

Abstract

Representation independence formally characterizes the encapsulation provided by language constructs for data abstraction and justifies reasoning by simulation. Representation independence has been shown for a variety of languages and constructs but not for shared references to mutable state; indeed it fails in general for such languages. This article formulates representation independence for classes, in an imperative, object-oriented language with pointers, subclassing and dynamic dispatch, class oriented visibility control, recursive types and methods, and a simple form of module. An instance of a class is considered to implement an abstraction using private fields and so-called representation objects. Encapsulation of representation objects is expressed by a restriction, called confinement, on aliasing. Representation independence is proved for programs satisfying the confinement condition. A static analysis is given for confinement that accepts common designs such as the observer and factory patterns. The formalization takes into account not only the usual interface between a client and a class that provides an abstraction but also the interface (often called “protected”) between the class and its subclasses.

References

[1]

Abadi, M., Banerjee, A., Heintze, N., and Riecke, J. G. 1999. A core calculus of dependency. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL). ACM, New York, 147--160.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[2]

Abadi, M., and Cardelli, L. 1996. A Theory of Objects. Springer-Verlag, New York.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[3]

Abadi, M., and Leino, K. R. M. 1997. A logic of object-oriented programs. In Theory and Practice of Software Development (TAPSOFT). Springer-Verlag, New York. (Expanded in DEC SRC report 161.)]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[4]

Aldrich, J., and Chambers, C. 2004. Ownership domains: Separating aliasing policy from mechanism. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Object Oriented Programming (ECOOP). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1--25.]]

Google Scholar

[5]

Aldrich, J., Kostadinov, V., and Chambers, C. 2002. Alias annotations for program understanding. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Object Oriented Programming: Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). ACM, New York.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[6]

Almeida, P. S. 1997. Balloon types: Controlling sharing of state in data types. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Object Oriented Programming (ECOOP). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, New York, 32--59.]]

Google Scholar

[7]

Arnold, K., and Gosling, J. 1998. The Java Programming Language, 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[8]

Banerjee, A., Heintze, N., and Riecke, J. G. 2001. Design and correctness of program transformations based on control-flow analysis. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Software (TACS). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, New York, 420--447.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[9]

Banerjee, A., and Naumann, D. A. 2002. Representation independence, confinement and access control. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL). ACM, New York, 166--177.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[10]

Banerjee, A., and Naumann, D. A. 2004a. Ownership confinement ensures representation independence for object-oriented programs. Tech. Rep. CS-2004-14, Stevens Institute of Technology. (Also available as technical report KSU CIS-TR-2004-6, Kansas State University.)]]

Google Scholar

[11]

Banerjee, A., and Naumann, D. A. 2004b. State based encapsulation and generics. Tech. Rep. CS-2004-11, Stevens Institute of Technology.]]

Google Scholar

[12]

Banerjee, A., and Naumann, D. A. 2005. State based ownership, reentrance, and encapsulation. In Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Object Oriented Programming (ECOOP). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3586. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 387--411.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[13]

Bhowmik, A., and Pugh, W. 1999. A secure implementation of Java inner classes. PLDI poster session, http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/SecureInnerClassesHandout.pdf.]]

Google Scholar

[14]

Boyland, J. 2001. Alias burying: Unique variables without destructive reads. Softw. Prac. Exp. 31, 6, 533--553.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[15]

Bruce, K. B. 2002. Foundations of Object-Oriented Programming Languages: Types and Semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[16]

Bruce, K. B., Cardelli, L., and Pierce, B. C. 1999. Comparing object encodings. Inf. Comput. 155, 1/2, 108--133.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[17]

Cavalcanti, A. L. C., and Naumann, D. A. 1999. A weakest precondition semantics for an object-oriented language of refinement. In FM'99---Formal Methods, Volume II. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1709. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1439--1459.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[18]

Cavalcanti, A. L. C., and Naumann, D. A. 2002. Forward simulation for data refinement of classes. In Formal Methods Europe. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2391. Springer-Verlag, New York, 471--490.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[19]

Clarke, D. 2001. Object ownership and containment. Ph.D. dissertation. University of New South Wales, Australia.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[20]

Clarke, D., and Drossopoulou, S. 2002. Ownership, encapsulation and the disjointness of type and effect. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Object Oriented Programming: Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). ACM, New York.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[21]

Clarke, D. G., Noble, J., and Potter, J. M. 2001. Simple ownership types for object containment. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Object Oriented Programming (ECOOP). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, New York.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[22]

Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., and Rivest, R. L. 1990. Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[23]

Cousot, P., and Cousot, R. 1977. Automatic synthesis of optimal invariant assertions: Mathematical foundations. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Programming Languages, SIGPLAN Notices, 12. ACM, New York, 1--12.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[24]

Dahl, O.-J., and Nygaard, K. 1966. Simula: An Algol-based simulation language. Commun. ACM 9, 9, 671--678.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[25]

Davey, B., and Priestley, H. 1990. Introduction to Lattices and Order. Cambridge University Press.]]

Google Scholar

[26]

de Roever, W.-P., and Engelhardt, K. 1998. Data Refinement: Model-Oriented Proof Methods and Their Comparison. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[27]

Detlefs, D. L., Leino, K. R. M., and Nelson, G. 1998. Wrestling with rep exposure. Res. Rep. 156, DEC Systems Research Center.]]

Google Scholar

[28]

Dhara, K. K., and Leavens, G. T. 1996. Forcing behavioral subtyping through specification inheritance. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 258--267.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[29]

Donahue, J. E. 1979. On the semantics of “data type”. SIAM J. Comput. 8, 4, 546--560.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[30]

Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., and Vlissides, J. 1995. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[31]

German, S. M., Clarke, E. M., and Halpern, J. Y. 1989. Reasoning about procedures as parameters in the language L4. Inf. Comput. 83, 265--359.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[32]

Gong, L. 1999. Inside Java 2 Platform Security. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[33]

Gordon, A. D., and Pitts, A. M., Eds. 1998. Higher Order Operational Techniques in Semantics. Cambridge University Press.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[34]

Grossman, D., Morrisett, G., and Zdancewic, S. 2000. Syntactic type abstraction. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 22, 6, 1037--1080.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[35]

Grothoff, C., Palsberg, J., and Vitek, J. 2001. Encapsulating objects with confined types. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Object Oriented Programming: Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). ACM, New York.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[36]

Haynes, C. T. 1984. A theory of data type representation independence. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Semantics of Data Types, G. Kahn, D. B. MacQueen, and G. Plotkin, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 173. Springer-Verlag, New York, 157--175.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[37]

He, J., Hoare, C. A. R., and Sanders, J. 1986. Data refinement refined (resumé). In European Symposium on Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 213. Springer-Verlag, New York.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[38]

Hoare, C. A. R. 1972. Proofs of correctness of data representations. Acta Inf. 1, 271--281.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[39]

Hogg, J. 1991. Islands: Aliasing protection in object-oriented languages. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Object Oriented Programming: Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). ACM, New York.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[40]

Hogg, J., Lea, D., Wills, A., deChampeaux, D., and Holt, R. 1992. The Geneva Convention on the treatment of object aliasing. OOPS Messenger 3, 2, 11--16.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[41]

Huisman, M. 2002. Verification of Java's AbstractCollection class: A case study. In Mathematics of Program Construction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2386. Springer-Verlag, New York, 175--194.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[42]

Huisman, M., and Jacobs, B. 2000. Java program verification via a Hoare logic with abrupt termination. In Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, New York, 284--303.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[43]

Igarashi, A., Pierce, B., and Wadler, P. 2001. Featherweight Java: A minimal core calculus for Java and GJ. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 23, 3 (May), 396--459.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[44]

Jones, C. B. 1986. Systematic software development using VDM. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice-Hall, New York.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[45]

Kennedy, A., and Syme, D. 2001. Design and implementation of generics for the .NET Common Language Runtime. In PLDI. 1--12.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[46]

Lea, D. 2000. Concurrent Programming in Java, Second ed. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[47]

Leavens, G. T., and Dhara, K. K. 2000. Concepts of behavioral subtyping and a sketch of their extension to component-based systems. In Foundations of Component-Based Systems, G. T. Leavens and M. Sitaraman, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Chap. 6, 113--135.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[48]

Leino, K. R. M., and Nelson, G. 2002. Data abstraction and information hiding. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 24, 5, 491--553.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[49]

Levy, P. 2002. Possible world semantics for general storage in call-by-value. In Computer Science Logic. Number 2471 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, New York.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[50]

Liskov, B., and Guttag, J. 1986. Abstraction and Specification in Program Development. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[51]

Liskov, B. H., and Wing, J. M. 1994. A behavioral notion of subtyping. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 16, 6, 1811--1841.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[52]

Lynch, N., and Vaandrager, F. 1995. Forward and backward simulations part I: Untimed systems. Inf. Comput. 121, 2, 214--233.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[53]

Meyer, A. R., and Sieber, K. 1988. Towards fully abstract semantics for local variables: Preliminary report. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL). ACM, New York, 191--203.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[54]

Milner, R. 1971. An algebraic definition of simulation between programs. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 481--489.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[55]

Minsky, N. H. 1996. Towards alias-free pointers. In European Conference on Object Oriented Programming (ECOOP). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1098. Springer-Verlag, New York, 189--209.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[56]

Mitchell, J. C. 1986. Representation independence and data abstraction. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL). ACM Press, 263--276.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[57]

Mitchell, J. C. 1991. On the equivalence of data representations. In Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, V. Lifschitz, Ed. 305--330.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[58]

Mitchell, J. C. 1996. Foundations for Programming Languages. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[59]

Müller, P. 2002. Modular Specification and Verification of Object-Oriented programs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2262. Springer-Verlag, New York.]]

Google Scholar

[60]

Müller, P., and Poetzsch-Heffter, A. 2000a. Modular specification and verification techniques for object-oriented software components. In Foundations of Component-Based Systems, G. T. Leavens and M. Sitaraman, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[61]

Müller, P., and Poetzsch--Heffter, A. 2000b. A type system for controlling representation exposure in Java. In ECOOP Workshop on Formal Techniques for Java Programs. Technical Report 269, Fernuniversit&atuml; Hagen.]]

Google Scholar

[62]

Naumann, D. A. 2001. Predicate transformer semantics of a higher order imperative language with record subtyping. Sci. Comput. Program. 41, 1, 1--51.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[63]

Naumann, D. A. 2002. Soundness of data refinement for a higher order imperative language. Theor. Comput. Sci. 278, 1--2, 271--301.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[64]

Naumann, D. A. 2005. Verifying a secure information flow analyzer. In Proceedings of 18th International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (TPHOLS). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3603. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 211--226.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[65]

O'Hearn, P. W., and Tennent, R. D. 1995. Parametricity and local variables. J. ACM 42, 3, 658--709.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[66]

Olderog, E.-R. 1983. Hoare's logic for programs with procedures---what has been achieved? In Proceedings, Logics of Programs, E. Clarke and D. Kozen, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 164. Springer-Verlag, New York.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[67]

Pierce, B. C. 2002. Types and Programming Languages. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[68]

Pitts, A. M. 1997. Reasoning about local variables with operationally-based logical relations. In Algol-Like Languages, P. W. O'Hearn and R. D. Tennent, Eds. Vol. 2. Birkhauser, Chapter 17, 173--193. Reprinted from Proceedings Eleventh Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Brunswick, NJ, July 1996, pp 152--163.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[69]

Pitts, A. M. 2000. Parametric polymorphism and operational equivalence. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 10, 321--359.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[70]

Pitts, A. M. 2005. Typed operational reasoning. In Advanced Topics in Types and Programming Languages, B. C. Pierce, Ed. The MIT Press, Chapter 7, 245--289.]]

Google Scholar

[71]

Plotkin, G. 1973. Lambda definability and logical relations. Tech. Rep. SAI-RM-4, University of Edinburgh, School of Artificial Intelligence.]]

Google Scholar

[72]

Poetzsch-Heffter, A., and Müller, P. 1999. A programming logic for sequential Java. In Programming Languages and Systems (ESOP), S. D. Swierstra, Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1576. Springer-Verlag, New York, 162--176.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[73]

Power, A. J., and Robinson, E. P. 2000. Logical relations and data abstraction. In Proceedings of Computer Science Logic (CSL), P. Clote and H. Schwichtenberg, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, New York, 497--511.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[74]

Reddy, U. S. 2002. Objects and classes in Algol-like languages. Inf. Comput. 172, 1 (Jan.). 63--97.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[75]

Reddy, U. S., and Yang, H. 2004. Correctness of data representations involving heap data structures. Sci. Comput. Program. 50, 1--3, 129--160.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[76]

Reus, B. 2003. Modular semantics and logics of classes. In Proceedings of the 17th International Workshop on Computer Science Logic (CSL). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2803. Springer-Verlag, New York, 456--469.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[77]

Reus, B., and Streicher, T. 2002. Semantics and logics of objects. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 113--124.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[78]

Reynolds, J. C. 1972. Definitional interpreters for higher-order programming languages. In Proceedings of 25th ACM National Conference. ACM, New York, 717--740.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[79]

Reynolds, J. C. 1974. Towards a theory of type structure. In Colloques sur la Programmation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 19. Springer-Verlag, New York, 408--425.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[80]

Reynolds, J. C. 1978. User-defined types and procedural data structures as complementary approaches to data abstraction. In Programming Methodology, D. Gries, Ed. Springer-Verlag, New York, 309--317.]]

Google Scholar

[81]

Reynolds, J. C. 1981a. The Craft of Programming. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[82]

Reynolds, J. C. 1981b. The essence of Algol. In Algorithmic Languages, J. W. de Bakker and J. C. van Vliet, Eds. North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.]]

Google Scholar

[83]

Reynolds, J. C. 1984. Types, abstraction, and parametric polymorphism. In Information Processing '83, R. Mason, Ed. North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 513--523.]]

Google Scholar

[84]

Reynolds, J. C. 2001. Intuitionistic reasoning about shared mutable data structure. In Millenial Perspectives in Computer Science. Palgrave.]]

Google Scholar

[85]

Reynolds, J. C. 2002. Separation logic: A logic for shared mutable data structures. In IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[86]

Riecke, J. G. 1993. Fully abstract translations between functional languages. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 3, 4, 387--415.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[87]

Stata, R. 1997. Modularity in the presence of subclassing. Research Report 145, DEC SRC, 130 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[88]

Strachey, C. 2000. Fundamental concepts in programming languages. Higher Order and Symbolic Computation 13, 1, 11--49. (Originally appeared in 1967 Lecture notes, International Summer School in Computer Programming, Copenhagen.)]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[89]

Sumii, E., and Pierce, B. C. 2005. A bisimulation for type abstraction and recursion. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL). ACM, New York, 63--74.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[90]

Vitek, J., and Bokowski, B. 2001. Confined types in Java. Softw. Pract. Exp. 31, 6, 507--532.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[91]

Volpano, D., Smith, G., and Irvine, C. 1996. A sound type system for secure flow analysis. J. Comput. Sec. 4, 3, 167--187.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[92]

Wallach, D., Appel, A., and Felten, E. 2000. SAFKASI: A security mechanism for language-based systems. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Meth. 9, 4 (Oct.), 341--378.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[93]

Winskel, G. 1993. The Formal Semantics of Programming Languages. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.]]

Digital Library

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Semenyuk MDongol BHong JLanperne MPark JCerny TShahriar H(2023)Ownership-Based Owicki-Gries ReasoningProceedings of the 38th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/3555776.3577636(1685-1694)Online publication date: 27-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3555776.3577636
Banerjee ANagasamudram RNaumann DNikouei M(2023)A Relational Program Logic with Data Abstraction and Dynamic FramingACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems10.1145/355149744:4(1-136)Online publication date: 10-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3551497
Mackay JEisenbach SNoble JDrossopoulou S(2022)Necessity specifications for robustnessProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/35633176:OOPSLA2(811-840)Online publication date: 31-Oct-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3563317
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Ownership confinement ensures representation independence for object-oriented programs
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software notations and tools
    1. General programming languages
      1. Language features
2. Theory of computation
  1. Logic
  2. Semantics and reasoning
    1. Program reasoning

Recommendations

Confinement framework for encapsulating objects

Confinement is used to prohibit safety-critical objects from unintended access. Approaches for specifying and verifying confinement have been proposed in the last twenty years but their application has been help back. We develop a novel framework for ...
Checking ownership and confinement: Research Articles
Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs

A number of proposals to manage aliasing in Java-like programming languages have been advanced over the last five years. It is not clear how practical these proposals are, that is, how well they relate to the kinds of programs currently written in Java-...
Static use-based object confinement

The confinement of object references is a significant security concern for modern programming languages. We define a language that serves as a uniform model for a variety of confined object reference systems. A use-based approach to confinement is ...

Reviews

Reviewer: Simon John Thompson

Understanding and reasoning about the behavior of programs written in object-oriented (OO) languages, such as Java, C#, and C++, remains difficult for a variety of reasons. Setting aside the problems there are in forming clear models of concurrent behavior, the major challenge is in understanding mutable, heap-based structures that will in general be referenced by multiple pointers. Abstraction is the key to mastering this: rather than giving direct access to the representation of a particular structure (by means of variables containing pointers to the heap), the structure will be referenced through selector and mutator methods. With such a discipline, however, comes the risk that it will provide a sanitized environment that is insufficient for embodying common patterns of use. It is therefore crucial that any system is shown to be permissive enough to allow at least a proportion of realistic programs and systems to be modeled. A particularly fertile characterization of abstraction is representation independence, which formalizes the notion that, relative to a given interface, two different representations of a structure have no discernible differences. While this semantic notion formalizes what is required in semantic terms, if a particular program is to be understood, then the usual route is syntactic. It is therefore desirable to define approximations to representation independence that can be decided algorithmically using abstract interpretation (or something similar). The major contribution of this paper is that it defines ownership confinement as a tractable mechanism for deciding representation independence, analyzes its properties, and shows that a number of common OO idioms, such as the observer and visitor patterns, come under its scope. The paper is a model of clarity, with clear introductions to the various topics, and a thorough bibliography and discussion of related work. The authors conclude with a discussion of the next steps for their program: in particular, ownership can be shared (between a standard owner and an iterator, for example) or transferred (from one owner to another). Online Computing Reviews Service

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

Journal of the ACM Volume 52, Issue 6

November 2005

189 pages

ISSN:0004-5411

EISSN:1557-735X

DOI:10.1145/1101821

Issue’s Table of Contents

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 November 2005

Published in JACM Volume 52, Issue 6

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

69
Total Citations
View Citations
1,126
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)8
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 10 Aug 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Semenyuk MDongol BHong JLanperne MPark JCerny TShahriar H(2023)Ownership-Based Owicki-Gries ReasoningProceedings of the 38th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/3555776.3577636(1685-1694)Online publication date: 27-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3555776.3577636
Banerjee ANagasamudram RNaumann DNikouei M(2023)A Relational Program Logic with Data Abstraction and Dynamic FramingACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems10.1145/355149744:4(1-136)Online publication date: 10-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3551497
Mackay JEisenbach SNoble JDrossopoulou S(2022)Necessity specifications for robustnessProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/35633176:OOPSLA2(811-840)Online publication date: 31-Oct-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3563317
Ngo MNaumann DRezk T(2020)Type-Based Declassification for FreeFormal Methods and Software Engineering10.1007/978-3-030-63406-3_11(181-197)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-63406-3_11
Naumann D(2020)Thirty-Seven Years of Relational Hoare Logic: Remarks on Its Principles and HistoryLeveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation: Engineering Principles10.1007/978-3-030-61470-6_7(93-116)Online publication date: 20-Oct-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-61470-6_7
Drossopoulou SNoble JMackay JEisenbach S(2020)Holistic Specifications for Robust ProgramsFundamental Approaches to Software Engineering10.1007/978-3-030-45234-6_21(420-440)Online publication date: 17-Apr-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45234-6_21
Jaber G(2019)SyTeCi: automating contextual equivalence for higher-order programs with referencesProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/33711274:POPL(1-28)Online publication date: 20-Dec-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3371127
Banerjee ANaumann DNikouei M(2018)A Logical Analysis of Framing for Specifications with Pure Method CallsACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems10.1145/317480140:2(1-90)Online publication date: 28-May-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3174801
Klebanov VRümmer PUlbrich M(2018)Automating regression verification of pointer programs by predicate abstractionFormal Methods in System Design10.1007/s10703-017-0293-852:3(229-259)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10703-017-0293-8
Flückiger OScherer GYee MGoel AAhmed AVitek J(2017)Correctness of speculative optimizations with dynamic deoptimizationProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/31581372:POPL(1-28)Online publication date: 27-Dec-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3158137
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

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

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Confinement framework for encapsulating objects

Checking ownership and confinement: Research Articles

Static use-based object confinement

Reviews

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Comments

Published In

Publisher

Publication History

Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Other Metrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Cited By

Login options

Full Access

PDF

eReader

Abstract

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Confinement framework for encapsulating objects

Checking ownership and confinement: Research Articles

Static use-based object confinement

Reviews

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Comments

Information

Published In

Publisher

Publication History

Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Get Access

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

eReader

Figures

Other

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

Affiliations