Andrew D. Birrell, Greg Nelson, Susan Owicki, and Edward P. Wobber. Network objects. Software: Practice and Experience, S4(25):87--130, December 1995.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....the way, it mentions relevant related work. The process calculus. The process calculus is a relative of the pi calculus [21] and the spi calculus [3] It includes channels with fixed receivers, as in the local pi calculus [19] the join calculus [11] and many object oriented languages (e. g, [6]) Such a channel can be used for transmitting secrets if the adversary cannot listen on the channel. On the other hand, the capability for sending on the channel may be published. The channel may therefore convey not only secrets but also public data from the adversary. The receiver needs static ....

Andrew Birrell, Greg Nelson, Susan Owicki, and Edward Wobber. Network objects. Software Practice and Experience, S4(25):87--130, December 1995.

....the introduction mentions relevant related work. The process calculus. The process calculus is a relative of the pi calculus [28] and the spi calculus [4] It includes channels with xed receivers, as in the local pi calculus [26] the join calculus [16] and many object oriented languages (e. g, [7]) Such a channel can be used for transmitting secrets if the adversary cannot listen on the channel. On the other hand, the capability for sending on the channel may be published. The channel may therefore convey not only secrets but also public data from the adversary. The receiver needs static ....

Andrew Birrell, Greg Nelson, Susan Owicki, and Edward Wobber. Network objects. Software Practice and Experience, S4(25):87-130, December 1995.

....[14] is an early example of a DSM providing PBR. It has a copying GC that takes into account user placement hints to improve locality. However, its GC is quite complex and has not been implemented. Much previous work in distributed garbage collection, such as SSP Chains [26] or Network Objects [6], considers processes communicating via RPC, and uses a hybrid of tracing and counting. Each process traces its internal pointers; references across process boundaries are counted as they are sent received in messages. Some object oriented databases (OODB) use a similar approach [1,9,23,30] i.e. ....

Andrew Birrell, Greg Nelson, Susan Owicki, and Edward Wobber. Network objects. Software Practice and Experience, S4(25):87--130, December 1995. http://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/SRC/research-reports/abstracts/srcrr -115.html. 248

....one argumentofclass java.io.FileInputStream. Our implementation provides native methods for reading and writing primitivetypes and generic objects. In addition, we provide native implementations for close( flush( and reset( Our object serialization protocol follows the approach described in [8, 2]. The following sections describe our implementation in detail. 3.1 Wire Protocol Each object in the bytestream consists of a zero byte, acting as a delimiter, followed bytheinternal state of that object. Alternatively, the delimiter maycontain a one byte, indicating a reset token. Reset tokens ....

A. Birrell, G. Nelson, S.S. Owicki, and E. Wobber. Network Objects. Software: Practice and Experience, 25(S4):87-130, Dec 1995.

....the introduction mentions relevant related work. The process calculus. The process calculus is a relative of the pi calculus [21] and the spi calculus [3] It includes channels with fixed receivers, as in the local pi calculus [19] the join calculus [11] and many object oriented languages (e. g, [6]) Such a channel can be used for transmitting secrets if the adversary cannot listen on the channel. On the other hand, the capability for sending on the channel may be published. The channel may therefore convey not only secrets but also public data from the adversary. The receiver needs static ....

Andrew Birrell, Greg Nelson, Susan Owicki, and Edward Wobber. Network objects. Software Practice and Experience, S4(25):87--130, December 1995.

....to permit an easier comprehension of and a better comparison between the algorithms It is the first concise and systematic presentation of and comparison between the algorithms from the family considered here. Another taxonomy of (single keyword) pattern matching algorithms by Hume and Sunday [HS91] does not meet the goals set in this paper since there any derivations and proofs of algorithms are missing. Moreover, we show that all functions that need to be precomputed for the pattern matching algorithms of this family can in a simple way be expressed in a small set of base functions. The ....

....REcognition and will be available at URL ftp: ftp.win.tue.nl pub techreports pi pattm spare . This implementation is entirely based on the abstract algorithms described in this paper in fact it is a systematic translation of them (this in contrast to for instance the implementations given in [HS91]) 1.1 Basic algorithm and derivation principles The algorithms in this family traverse the input string in a direction that is opposite to the direction in which keyword symbols are matched to symbols in the input string. In this paper we choose to inspect suffixes of prefixes of the input ....

Andrew Hume and Daniel M. Sunday. Fast string searching. Software---Practice and Experience, 21(11):1221--1248, November 1991.

....the way, it mentions relevant related work. The process calculus. The process calculus is a relative of the pi calculus [21] and the spi calculus [3] It includes channels with fixed receivers, as in the local pi calculus [19] the join calculus [11] and many object oriented languages (e. g, [6]) Such a channel can be used for transmitting secrets if the adversary cannot listen on the channel. On the other hand, the capability for sending on the channel may be published. The channel may therefore convey not only secrets but also public data from the adversary. The receiver needs static ....

Andrew Birrell, Greg Nelson, Susan Owicki, and Edward Wobber. Network objects. Software Practice and Experience, S4(25):87--130, December 1995.

....protocols are correct, we argue that our method is correct by establishing some of its properties within a process calculus. Communications processing is an important part of distributed language systems with facilities such as RPC (remote procedure call) 12] and RMI (remote method invocation) [10, 32]. Like our method, such systems include marshaling and often rely on cryptography for security [11, 21, 31, 29] However, the specifics of our method are apparently new, and so is the formal precision with which we are able to define it and analyze it. Since our aim is to provide a foundation for ....

A. Birrell, G. Nelson, S. Owicki, and E. Wobber. Network objects. Software Practice and Experience, S4(25):87--130, Dec. 1995.

....how such different policies would affect a garbage collected heap. Improvements can be made to this simple algorithm, such as maintaining separate free areas for each thread in order to reduce the use of locks in multiprocessor environments (which can also be done for copying collectors [3]) Such improvements are outside the scope of this paper. 3 I propose calling this greedy fit memory allocation. 3 Overhead Measurements Algorithm 2 would be useless if the overhead in switching free areas is prohibitively large. This section measures the overhead to see if it is cheap enough ....

Andrew W. Appel. Allocation without locking. Software Practice and Experience, 19(7):702--705, July 1989.

....EOS [18] is an early example of a DSM providing PBR. It has a copying GC that takes into account user placement hints to improve locality. However, its GC is quite complex and has not been implemented. Much previous work in distributed garbage collection, such as SSP Chains [28] or Network Objects [7], considers processes communicating via RPC using a hybrid of tracing and counting. Each process traces its internal pointers; references across process boundaries are counted as they are sent in messages. Note that these solutions do not consider a DSM based system, such as Larchant, in which ....

Andrew Birrell, Greg Nelson, Susan Owicki, and Edward Wobber. Network objects. Software Practice and Experience, S4(25):87--130, December 1995. http://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/SRC/researchreports /abstracts/src-rr-115.html.

....EOS [14] is an early example of a DSM providing PBR. It has a copying GC that takes into account user placement hints to improve locality. However, its GC is quite complex and has not been implemented. Much previous work in distributed garbage collection, such as SSP Chains [26] or Network Objects [6], considers processes communicating via RPC, and uses a hybrid of tracing and counting. Each process traces its internal pointers; references across process boundaries are counted as they are sent received in messages. Some object oriented databases (OODB) use a similar approach [1, 9, 23, 30] ....

Andrew Birrell, Greg Nelson, Susan Owicki, and Edward Wobber. Network objects. Software Practice and Experience, S4(25):87--130, December 1995. http://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/SRC/research-reports/abstracts/srcrr -115.html.

No context found.

Andrew D. Birrell, Greg Nelson, Susan Owicki, and Edward P. Wobber. Network objects. Software: Practice and Experience, S4(25):87--130, December 1995.

No context found.

Andrew Birrell, Greg Nelson, Susan Owicki, and Edward Wobber. Network objects. Software Practice and Experience, S4(25):87--130, December 1995.

No context found.

Andrew Birrell, Greg Nelson, Susan Owicki, and Edward Wobber. Network objects. Software Practice and Experience, S4(25):87--130, December 1995.

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