Cited references and notes

1. It may be that the user is reconfiguring the system with the explicit intent of changing the dataflow dependencies; thus, the off-line tests are used only as warnings of possible incompatibility.
2. Z. Kalbarczyk, R. K. Iyer, S. Bagchi, and K. Whisnant, “Chameleon: A Software Infrastructure for Adaptive Fault Tolerance,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 10, No. 6, 560–579 (June 1999).
3. Where appropriate, the name of a variable v ∈ (v.name) is distinguished from the value of the variable (v.val).
4. If a code block both writes to thread variables and pushes an operation sequence onto the operation stack of the thread while operation p is delivered, then the operations in the pushed sequence begin executing only after p completely executes. The thread variables written by p, therefore, are visible to the operation sequence pushed by p.
5. When the boundaries of an atomic state change must extend beyond a single operation delivery, multidelivery locks can be used as described in a later section.
6. Dataflow dependencies can be formally defined between an operation q and an earlier operation p with respect to a particular thread variable v.
7. This situation can be compared to a series of nested function calls: The return value for the innermost function call only propagates to the topmost level if it is returned unmodified by each function call in the chain.
8. Since each code block exists in one and only one element, operation-to-element bindings can be derived from the BindCode function.
9. Details of these multidelivery locks (such as deadlock detection and avoidance¹⁰) are beyond the scope of this paper, but the issues are similar to those found in traditional concurrency control and parallel programming.
10. C.-S. Shih and J. Stankovic, Survey of Deadlock Detection in Distributed Concurrent Programming Environments and Its Application to Real-Time Systems and Ada, Technical Report UM-CS-1990-069, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA (August 1990).
11. K. Whisnant, Z. Kalbarczyk, and R. K. Iyer, “Micro-checkpointing: Checkpointing for Multithreaded Applications,” Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International On-Line Testing Workshop (July 2000).
12. S. Bagchi, B. Srinivasan, K. Whisnant, Z. Kalbarczyk, and R. Iyer, “Hierarchical Error Detection in a SIFT Environment,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 12, No. 2, 203–224 (March/April 2000).
13. K. Whisnant, R. K. Iyer, P. Jones, R. Some, and D. Rennels, “An Experimental Evaluation of the REE SIFT Environment for Spaceborne Applications,” Proceedings of the 2002 International Dependable Systems and Networks (June 2002), pp. 585–595.
14. J. Purtilo, “The Polylith Software Bus,” ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 16, No. 1, 151–174 (January 1994).
15. D. C. Luckham, J. J. Kenney, L. M. Augustin, J. Vera, D. Bryan, and W. Mann, “Specification and Analysis of System Architecture Using Rapide,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21, No. 4, 336–355 (April 1995).
16. N. Medvidovic and R. Taylor, “A Classification and Comparison Framework for Software Architecture Description Languages,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26, No. 1, 70–93 (January 2000).
17. M. Shaw, R. DeLine, D. V. Klein, T. L. Ross, D. M. Young, and G. Zelesnik, “Abstractions for Software Architecture and Tools to Support Them,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21, No. 4, 314–335 (April 1995).
18. J. Kramer and J. Magee, “Analysing Dynamic Change in Software Architectures: A Case Study,” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems (1998), pp. 91–100.
19. R. Allen, R. Douence, and D. Garlan, “Specifying and Analyzing Dynamic Software Architectures,” Proceedings of the Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1382 (April 1998).
20. S.-W. Cheng, D. Garlan, B. Schmerl, J. P. Sousa, B. Spitznagel, and P. Steenkiste, “Using Architectural Style as a Basis for System Self-Repair,” Proceedings of the Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (2002), pp. 45–59.
21. S. Shrivastava and S. Wheater, “Architectural Support for Dynamic Reconfiguration of Large Scale Distributed Applications,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems (May 1998), pp. 10–17.
22. P. Feiler and J. Li, “Consistency in Dynamic Reconfiguration,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems (May 1998), pp. 189–196.