ode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Assaf Arkin" <ar...@intalio.com>
Subject Re: PXE implementation basis
Date Fri, 21 Apr 2006 05:29:55 GMT
The best approach I find is separation of concerns. You worry about data
extraction (XPath/XQuery) in one place, deal with messaging in another, put
one layer in charge or reliability problems (transactions, persistence,
etc). Similarly, you have one layer dealing with concurrency and state
transition problems, and another one to write the high-level activities,
where you can focus on nothing but their semantics.

The model I'd pick for simplicity would deal with concurrency, state
transitions and channel passing semantics. That way you can wire a lot of
things around it, you can make parallel flows and event handler, compensate
and interrupt them. You can have composite activities, but also link them
together, and nest states arbitrarily.

Those are all software decisions, but if you want to understand the model it
can be easier to start with something simpler, dissociated from code. These
models are descriptive, not prescriptive. You don't build anything from
pi-calculus, it wasn't designed as an architecture for building software.
But there's a huge class of applications you can better understand with
pi-calculus.

If you want to understand why TCP works, how parallel processes execute
without dead-lock, or mathematically model peer-to-peer network, that's one
of the better ways of doing it. It's the equivalent of relational algebra or
lambda-calculus. You don't write relational algebra to query your database,
and it won't get you to do faster I/O or split data across disks. But you
can write better SQL if you understand the cost of queries and updates.

Assaf


On 4/20/06, Bill Flood <bill.f.flood@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My previous question on the gain vs pain for a specific implementation
> preference was aimed at getting to some concrete advantage.  Paul,
> your explanation of the algorithm's ability to solve the Sieve problem
> helps and Assaf's argument about the ease of changing the model is
> interesting as well.
>
> I was just trying to get to the root of the issue about pi-calculus
> and it's advantage to the runtime model once it is deployed.
>
> Not that it has any impact to our discussion or reflects on your
> explanation, but, here's another interesting article.
>
> http://is.tm.tue.nl/staff/wvdaalst/pi-hype.pdf
>
> Bill
>
> On 4/12/06, Paul R Brown < paulrbrown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, All --
> >
> > JaCOb is Maciej's invention, so I'm hoping that he'll jump in here at
> > some point and add a layer of detail.
> >
> > The articles that Matt pointed to can make some interesting reading
> > (I like the Sangiori and Weaver book (ISBN 0521781779) and Gul Agha's
> > thesis (linked from my bookmarks -- http://del.icio.us/prb/actors)<http://del.icio.us/prb/actors%29>
> ).
> > **BUT** PXE is a *PRACTICAL* design, you don't need any of the heavy
> > machinery to appreciate how PXE works.
> >
> > Getting back to the sieve example with JaCOb, here's the basic idea:
> >
> > The Sieve of Erasthones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > Sieve_of_Eratosthenes) provides a way to enumerate prime numbers.  In
> > terms of the example, you have three process terms that work together:
> >
> > 1) You've got a counter term that sends integers one after the other.
> > 2) You've got a head term that works like a factory for primality
> > checkers.
> > 3) You've got a printer.
> >
> > We start off with an arrangement like this:
> >
> > Counter -1-> Head -2-> Print
> >
> > Counter sends 2 to Head on -1->, and Head creates a prime checker and
> > a new Head.  The new Head still talks to Print on -2->.  The prime
> > checker listens on -1-> and checks for relatively primeness to 2; if
> > it succeeds, it tells the new Head (on -3->).  So we have:
> >
> > Counter -1-> P2 -3-> Head -2-> Print
> >
> > Note that the P2 above is really the term PrimeFilter(2,-1->,-3->),
> > Head is really Head(-3->,-2->), and Counter is really Counter(3,-1->).
> >
> > When Counter sends 3, P2 passes it along, and Head again spawns a
> > checker for relatively primeness to 3 and a new Head:
> >
> > Counter -1-> P2 -3-> P3 -4-> Head -2-> Print
> >
> > Counter is really Counter(4,-1->), and this time, PrimeFilter(2,-1-
> >  >,-3->) just absorbs it.  Counter is now Counter(5,-1->), 5 will
> > flow from P2 to P3 to Head, which spawns a mod 5 checker and a new
> > Head, etc.
> >
> > This is what the Sieve example does, and JaCOb ("[Ja]va [C]oncurrent
> > [Ob]jects") is a relatively thin layer to translate between notation
> > like the above and Java.  The translation between process notation
> > like the above and JaCOb notation takes a little getting used to, but
> > this little snippet is relatively close to the underlying notation:
> >
> >    Process:
> >      ( v x )
> >    JaCOb:
> >      NaturalNumberStreamChannel x = newChannel
> > (NaturalNumberStreamChannel.class );
> >
> >    Process:
> >      PrimeFilter(n,_in,x)
> >    JaCOb:
> >      instance(new PrimeFilter(n, _in, x));
> >
> >    Process:
> >      Head(x,_primes)
> >    JaCOb:
> >      instance(new Head(x, _primes));
> >
> > And this is the "spawning" phenomenon within a Head(...) term.
> > (Parallelism is implicit in JaCOb, so no "|" is needed.)  This is
> > covered in the JavaDoc for the instance method on Abstraction --
> > "instance(new Term(args))" in JaCOb Java notation is equivalent to
> > "Term(args)" in process notation.  In the same vein, "self" is a
> > reduction of the represented term.
> >
> > Does this make some sense so far?
> >
> >         -- Paul
> >
> >
> > On Apr 6, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Alex Boisvert wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Yes, the sieve example can be found at:
> > >
> > > $PXE_SVN/jacob/src/java/com/fs/jacob/examples/eratosthenes/Sieve.java
> > >
> > > alex
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul R Brown wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Hi, Bill --
> > >>
> > >>> We are trying to understand the PXE contribution.  Is this the
> > >>> implementation basis for PXE?
> > >>> http://www.labri.fr/perso/grange/documents/fmppta.pdf
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Funny -- that's a *different* Jacob but with a few ideas in common.
> > >> (Or at least that's the way it looks after I skimmed the paper.)
> > >>
> > >> Did the prime sieve example make it into the submission?  If so, I
> > >> can walk through that as an explanation.
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >>
> > >> -- Paul
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>



--
CTO, Intalio
http://www.intalio.com
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message