Efficient recovery of algebraic specifications for stateful components

ABSTRACT

Specification recovery is a necessary step of many reverse engineering and reuse efforts. This paper deals with recovering the semantic part of a component's interface. It focuses on stateful components that provide data abstractions. Recovery is achieved by following a black-box strategy, i.e. by observing the component's dynamic behavior. Among the published approaches, Heureka recovers algebraic specifications from Java classes. Another approach (Adabu) recovers behavioral models. The work we describe here adapts the latter, which provides an approximate semantic description for the class, to significantly optimize the former. The resulting approach, called Adiheu, is described in the paper with a preliminary assessment.

REFERENCES

• 1: L. C. Briand , Y. Labiche , Y. Miao, Towards the Reverse Engineering of UML Sequence Diagrams, Proceedings of the 10th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, p.57, November 13-17, 2003
• 2: CoFI (The Common Framework Initiative). Casl Reference Manual. LNCS 2960 (IFIP Series). Springer, 2004.
• 3: Valentin Dallmeier , Christian Lindig , Andrzej Wasylkowski , Andreas Zeller, Mining object behavior with ADABU, Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Dynamic systems analysis, May 23-23, 2006, Shanghai, China [doi>10.1145/1138912.1138918]
• 4: Razvan Diaconescu , Kokichi Futatsugi , Shusaku Iida, Component-Based Algebraic Specification and Verification in CafeOBJ, Proceedings of the Wold Congress on Formal Methods in the Development of Computing Systems-Volume II, p.1644-1663, September 20-24, 1999
• 5: Michael Dean Ernst , David Notkin, Dynamically discovering likely program invariants, University of Washington, 2000
• 6: Goguen, J. A., Thatcher, J. W., and Wagner, E. W. An initial algebra approach to the specification, correctness and implementation of abstract data types. In Current Trends in Programming Methodology, Volume 4:Software Specification and Design, R. T. Yeh, Ed. Prentice Hall, 1978, ch. 5, pp. 80--149.
• 7: Barbara Liskov , John Guttag, Program Development in Java: Abstraction, Specification, and Object-Oriented Design, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 2000
• 8: Guttag, J. V., and Horning, J. J. The algebraic specification of abstract data types. Acta Informatica 10, 1 (1978).
• 9: Henkel, J., and Diwan, A. Discovering algebraic specifications from Java classes. In ECOOP 2003 -- Object-Oriented Programming, 17th European Conference (Darmstadt, July 2003), L. Cardelli, Ed., Springer.
• 10: Leavens, G. T., Baker, A. L., and Ruby, C. JML: A notation for detailed design. In Behavioral Specifications of Businesses and Systems, H. Kilov, B. Rumpe, and I. Simmonds, Eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999, pp. 175--188.
• 11: Bertrand Meyer, Design by Contract: The Eiffel Method, Proceedings of the Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems, p.446, August 03-07, 1998
• 12: Robert O'Callahan , Daniel Jackson, Lackwit: a program understanding tool based on type inference, Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Software engineering, p.338-348, May 17-23, 1997, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/253228.253351]
• 13: Atanas Rountev , Beth Harkness Connell, Object naming analysis for reverse-engineered sequence diagrams, Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering, May 15-21, 2005, St. Louis, MO, USA [doi>10.1145/1062455.1062510]
• 14: Mooly Sagiv , Thomas Reps , Reinhard Wilhelm, Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic, Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.105-118, January 20-22, 1999, San Antonio, Texas, United States [doi>10.1145/292540.292552]