1. daniel jackson & sarfraz khurshid lcs retreat ·martha’s vineyard · june 2k unintentional naming

2. 2 alloy project hypothesis ·better software? base on clear & simple concepts why models? ·smaller & more flexible than code ·can analyze exhaustively alloy ·a RISC modelling notation ·for structural properties ·SAT-based analyzer elaborate model run analysis interpret results model & issues

3. 3 architecture translate problem translate solution mapping boolean formula boolean solution SAT solver design problem result

4. 4 intentional naming case study why INS? ·naming vital to infrastructure ·INS more powerful than Jini, COM, etc ·the Kaashoek challenge … what? ·analyzed lookup operation ·based model on SOSP paper & Java code ·a few weeks in April ·Khurshid did all the work

5. 5 intentional naming attribute/value pairs  city: cambridge  hierarchical specs  city: cambridge, building: ne43, room: 524   service: camera, resolution: hi   service: printer, postscript: level2  lookup ·database maps spec to set of records ·query is set of specs ·lookup returns records meeting all specs

6. 6 building camera service ne43 query n1 n0 building camera service ne43printer database tree representation n0 n1 n0

7. 7 strategy model database & queries ·characterize by constraints ·generate samples check properties ·obvious no record returned when no attributes match ·claims “wildcards are equivalent to omissions” ·essential additions to DB don’t reduce query results discuss and refine …

8. 8 alloy model: state model INS { domain {Attribute, Value, Record} state { Root : fixed Value! valQ : Attribute? -> Value? attQ : Value? -> Attribute valDB : Attribute? -> Value attDB : Value? -> Attribute rec : Value + -> Record lookup : Value -> Record }

9. 9 alloy model: constraints // no cycles in query inv Q4 {no v | v in v.+nextQ} // if query and DB share a leaf value, lookup returns its records inv Lookup1 {all v | no v.attQ || no v.attDB -> v.lookup = v.rec} // adding a record doesn’t reduce results assert LookupOK7 {AddRecord -> Root.lookup in Root.lookup'}

10. 10 checking assertions select scope run check counter? fix model slow? real? incr scope prop fails prop holds YY N N Y N 3 attrs, vals, recs

11. 11 results 12 assertions checked ·when query is subtree, ok ·found known bugs in paper ·found bugs in fixes too ·monotonicity violated

12. 12 counterexample type mono n1 service printer databasequery service printer type mono size A4 n1 n0 size A4

13. 13 time & effort costs  2 weeks modelling, ~100 lines Alloy cf. 900 lines testing code  all bugs found in < 10 secs with scope of 4 2 records, 2 attrs, 3 values usually enough cf. a year of use  exhausts scope of 5 in 30 secs max space of approx 10^20 cases

14. 14 lessons ·quick & easy prototyping ·more effective than testing ·assertions easily invented ·visualization a big help  ·model not modular ·algorithm a bit tricky ·can’t express paths

15. 15 related experiences case studies ·microsoft COM: no encapsulation ·collaborative arrival planner: ghost planes ·PANS phone: light gets stuck other users ·alloy taught in courses at 5 universities ·case studies at: DERA, AT&T, FS, U.Southampton, Imperial, Oxford typical dimensions ·model: 20 – 200 lines ·space: 30 – 300 bits

16. 16 helping oxygen? ·rapid experimentation ·articulating essence ·simplifying design

17. 17 musings why does Alloy help? lazy specification refining design ideas  catching showstopper bugs modelling on the rise? ·tool as trojan horse (SDL, SPIN, SMV) ·design patterns phenomenon ·shop floor to drafting office, c.1850