Section: New Results

Behavioural Types

Behavioural type systems ensure more than the usual safety guarantees of static analysis. They are based on the idea of “types-as-processes”, providing dedicated type algebras for particular properties, ranging from protocol compatibility to race-freedom, lock-freedom, or even responsiveness.

Two successful, although rather different, approaches, are session types and process types. The former allows to specify and verify (distributed) communication protocols using specific type (proof) systems; the latter allows to infer from a system specification a process abstraction on which it is simpler to verify properties, using a generic type (proof) system. What is the relationship between these approaches? Can the generic one subsume the specific one? At what price? And can the former be used as a compiler for the latter?

In [15] , we showed how communication protocols can be integrated into an object-oriented type system supporting non-uniform objects, i. e. objects where the sequences of method calls are restricted, such as a File where read() cannot be called after close() . In such a system, communication protocols can be enforced by giving appropriate non-uniform types to the socket objects. We defined a sound and complete type checking algorithm for a small distributed class-based object-oriented language with structural subtyping. Static typing guarantees that both sequences of messages on channels, and sequences of method calls on objects, conform to type-theoretic specifications, thus ensuring type-safety.