mendozag@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Victor M Mendoza-Grado) (11/12/89)
I am trying to recall the reference where the set of primitives for message-passing and for shared memory mechanisms are shown to be equivalent in power. I that thought maybe someone in the net can lend a hand, which I'll appreciate very much. I barely remember it was included in one of the LNCS volumes, but I might be wrong. Thanks in advance Victor M. Grado mendozag@ecn.purdue.edu
scott@cs.rochester.edu (Michael Scott) (11/15/89)
In article <9745@saturn.ucsc.edu> mendozag@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Victor M Mendoza-Grado) writes: | | I am trying to recall the reference where the set of primitives | for message-passing and for shared memory mechanisms are shown | to be equivalent in power. I that thought maybe someone in the net | can lend a hand, which I'll appreciate very much. | | I barely remember it was included in one of the LNCS volumes, | but I might be wrong. | | Thanks in advance | | Victor M. Grado | mendozag@ecn.purdue.edu You're probably refering to the classic Lauer and Needham paper: %A H. C. Lauer %A R. M. Needham %T On the Duality of Operating System Structures %J ACM Operating Systems Review %V 13 %N 2 %P 3-19 %D April 1979 %O Originally presented at the \f2Second International Symposium on Operating Systems\fP, October 1978 You might also be interested in a little technical note I wrote back when I was a grad student: %A M. L. Scott %T Messages v. Remote Procedures is a False Dichotomy %J ACM SIGPLAN Notices %V 18 %N 5 %D May 1983 %P 57-62 -- Michael L. Scott University of Rochester (716) 275-7745 scott@cs.rochester.edu scott%rochester@CSNET-RELAY {decvax, allegra, cmcl2}!rochester!scott
mendozag@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Victor M Mendoza-Grado) (11/17/89)
In article <9745@saturn.ucsc.edu> I write: > > I am trying to recall the reference where the set of primitives > for message-passing and for shared memory mechanisms are shown > to be equivalent in power. Here is the citation of this highly recommended paper: Hugh C. Lauer, Roger M. Needham ``On the Duality of Operating System Structures'' Second Int'l. Symposium on Operating Systems, IRIA 78, reprinted in Operating Systems Review 13(2) April 79, pp:3-19 Thanks to the many fine folks who replied! Victor M. Grado School of EE, Box #62 Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907 mendozag@ecn.purdue.edu ...!pur-ee!mendozag
jacob@ntvax.uucp (Tom Jacob) (11/17/89)
In article <9745@saturn.ucsc.edu> mendozag@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Victor M Mendoza-Grado) writes: > > I am trying to recall the reference where the set of primitives > for message-passing and for shared memory mechanisms are shown > to be equivalent in power. I that thought maybe someone in the net > can lend a hand, which I'll appreciate very much. > How about H.C. Lauer and R.M. Needham, On the duality of operating system structures, reprinted in Operating Systems Review, vol. 13, no. 2, (1979), pp. 3-19 Tom Jacob Department of Computer Science University of North Texas jacob@dept.csci.unt.edu
pcg@emerald.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (11/18/89)
In article <9745@saturn.ucsc.edu> mendozag@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Victor M Mendoza-Grado) writes:
I am trying to recall the reference where the set of primitives
for message-passing and for shared memory mechanisms are shown
to be equivalent in power.
Not just equivalent in power; actually different ways of doing
exactly the same thing, with exactly the same runtime behaviour
and efficiency. It is even demonstrated how a program written in
one style can be easily converted to the other...
I that thought maybe someone in the net
can lend a hand, which I'll appreciate very much.
It is Dr. Bijarne Stroustrup's doctoral dissertation, from
Cambridge. It has been summarized in some article; I think it
was in SP&E, but maybe you are right in remembering it in a LNCS.
You have not asked my opinion on it, but I will venture to say
that he proves the equivalence of the two things having defined
them in a way such that the only differences are syntactic :->.
The dissertation is very interesting, especially because of the
discussion on performance.
--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.ukgreg@cs.arizona.edu (Greg Andrews) (11/21/89)
In article <9745@saturn.ucsc.edu>, mendozag@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Victor M Mendoza-Grado) writes: > > I am trying to recall the reference where the set of primitives > for message-passing and for shared memory mechanisms are shown > to be equivalent in power. I that thought maybe someone in the net > can lend a hand, which I'll appreciate very much. > > I barely remember it was included in one of the LNCS volumes, > but I might be wrong. > I believe the reference you want is the "duality" paper: Lauer, H.C and Needham, R.M. On the duality of operating system structures. In Proc. 2nd Int. Symposium on Operating Systems (IRIA, Paris, Oct. 1978); reprinted in Operating Systems Review 13, 2 (April 1979), 3-19. That paper points out the duality between monitors and message passing in terms both of expressive power and performance (at least of the user's code). This topic, and several others, is also surveyed in a recent paper of mine that readers of this news group might be interested in: Andrews, G.R. Paradigms for process interaction in distributed programs. TR 89-24, Dept. of Computer Science, The Univeristy of Arizona, October 1989.