D. L. Parnas, "Response to detected errors in well-structured programs," Dep. Comput. Sci., CarnegieMellon Univ., Pittsburgh, Pa., Tech. Rep., July 1972.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... large over heterogeneous and distributed environments [AM97] Programming tools intended for large, complex applications incorporate exception handling mechanisms to separate the failure semantics from the normal program logic and thus facilitate the design of readable, comprehensible programs [Par72, Goo75, YB85, vZBC96] Exception handling mechanisms are also incorporated into frameworks for distributed applications like CORBA and into operating systems like Windows NT. Despite the similarities between process support systems and programming environments [AHST97a, AHST97b] there is little ....

....used in transaction management can be used in workflow environments. Our approach differs from this work mainly because of its strong focus on modeling language aspects and because we do not assume a transactional environment. Finally, the work on exception handling in programming languages [Par72, Goo75, YB85, vZBC96, Seb96] has provided the basics for our approach. While it provides constructs for the seamless integration of exception handling into workflow descriptions, it lacks the consideration of practical aspects that become important in workflow systems such as the participation of ....

D.L. Parnas. Response to detected errors in well-structured programs. Technical report, Computer Science Dept, Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 1972.

....early stages of programming methodology development in the 60s, research has mostly focused on mastering the complexity inherent in the usual or standard program behavior. The first papers entirely devoted to exception handling began to appear only in the 70s, e.g. Goodenough75] Horning74] Parnas72b] Wulf75] Early discussions of the issue were often marred by misunderstandings arising from the lack of precise definitions and terminology, but by the end of the 70s [Cristian79a] Liskov79] it became clear that all proposed exception mechanisms can be classified into two basic categories: ....

.... proposed exception mechanisms can be classified into two basic categories: termination mechanisms [Anderson81] Back79] Best81a] Bron76] Cristian79a] Cristian80] Horning74] Ichbiah79] Liskov79] Melliar77] Wulf75] and resumption mechanisms [Goodenough75] Lampson74] Levin77] Parnas72b] Yemini82] For some time it was not clear which kind of mechanism will gain acceptance from programmers. Convincing arguments that the termination paradigm is superior to the resumption paradigm are presented in [Cristian79a] Liskov79] and will not be repeated here. Recent developments ....

D. Parnas, "Response to Detected Errors in Well-Structured Programs", Technical report, Carnegie-Mellon University, Dept. of Computer Science, 1972.

....Box 1331 Piscataway, NJ 08855 1331, USA. Telephone: Intl. 908 562 3966. Programming tools intended for large, complex applications incorporate exception handling mechanisms to separate the failure semantics from the program logic and thus facilitate the design of readable, comprehensible code [14, 8, 18, 17]. Despite the similarities between process support systems and programming environments [2] there is little support for exception handling in current process systems. Any possible exception must be encoded in the process. Exceptions not hard wired into the process result in either aborting the ....

D.L. Parnas. Response to detected errors in well-structured programs. Technical report, Computer Science Dept, Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 1972.

No context found.

D. L. Parnas, "Response to detected errors in well-structured programs," Dep. Comput. Sci., CarnegieMellon Univ., Pittsburgh, Pa., Tech. Rep., July 1972.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC