DOCSLIB.ORG

Enabling Model-Driven Software Development Tools for the Internet of Things

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Enabling Model-Driven Software Development Tools for the Internet of Things Enabling Model-Driven Software Development Tools for the Internet of Things Karim Jahed Juergen Dingel Queen’s University Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada Kingston, Ontario, Canada [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT The IoT is envisioned as an infrastructure for a wide range of The heterogeneity and complexity of Internet of Things (IoT) ap- heterogeneous "things" that exchange all sort of data using a battery plications present new challenges to the software development of network protocols. Things range from simple physical objects process. Model-Driven Software Development (MDSD) is increas- embedded with sensors and actuators to traditional computing ingly being recognized as a key paradigm in tackling many of these devices and user interfaces, all the way to complex cloud services. challenges, as evident by the emergence of a significant number An IoT application typically combines several of these entities in a of MDSD frameworks targeting IoT in the past couple of years. At well-defined manner to achieve certain goals, and provide the user the heart of IoT applications are embedded and realtime systems, a with a unified, coherent experience. domain where model-driven development is well-established and The scale and complexity of envisioned IoT systems set forth many existing tools have a proven track record. Unfortunately, only new challenges for their design and development. Researchers have a handful of these tools support out-of-the-box integration with the recently begun to recognize Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) as a IoT. In this work, we discuss the different design and implementa- key-enabler in tackling many of these challenges. The most promi- tion decisions for enabling existing actor-oriented MDSD tools for nent challenge being heterogeneity in both software and hardware the IoT. Moreover, we propose an integration approach based on [6]. Not only can IoT devices differ in terms of hardware and soft- the use of proxy actors and system interfaces. The approach offers ware, but the latter itself is often expected to be deployable on a seamless and flexible integration of external IoT devices into the wide variety of hardware. The abstraction capabilities that Domain user’s model. We implement and evaluate our approach using the Specific Languages (DSL) offer, coupled with automation bymeans MDSD tool Papyrus for Realtime as a testbed. of code generation, allows the specification of software systems in a way that transcends any single platform. A remarkable number of KEYWORDS Model-Driven Development (MDD) tools for the Internet of Things has been proposed in the past couple of years [26][28][15][13] Model-Driven Development, Internet of Things, UML-RT, Papyrus- [9] [18]. RT While MDD tools for the holistic design, development, and anal- ysis of IoT systems continue to emerge, an array of tools and frame- works for the modeling real-time and embedded systems already 1 INTRODUCTION exists and have a proven track record. Unfortunately, many of these The Internet of Things (IoT) is arguably one of the biggest leaps in tools lack integration with the IoT, as in they do not provide an the evolution of the Internet since the introduction of the World explicit way to interact with third-party IoT devices. Significant Wide Web. From a technological perspective, IoT is the logical result effort has already been invested in recent years to remedy this of the proliferation of Internet-ready, non-conventional computing problem, as we demonstrate in Section 5, however, as far as we can devices, motivated in part by advances in wireless networking. tell, the literature lacks a systematic presentation and discussion of A growing number of everyday physical objects – ranging from the ’design space’, i.e., the different fundamental design decisions simple home appliances, wearables, and automotive, to complex and their advantages and disadvantages, and how to integrate code industrial pipelines – are being connected to the Internet at an created with MDD tools into IoT applications. unprecedented rate. In fact, the number of IoT devices is expected In this work, we provide such a discussion of the design space to exceed 30 billion by the year 2020 [27], doubling a 2015 estimate while also describing a specific approach that we have chosen, of 15 billion devices [23]. implemented, and evaluated. We propose a combination of proxy The IoT promises far-reaching impact that touches nearly every model-components that acts as representative for external IoT de- aspect of our lives. Home automation, health monitoring, traffic vices and are easily embeddable in the user’s model, along with management, and smart cities [36] are just a few examples of what specialized system interfaces that offer the modeller full control IoT entends to enable. The enormous amount of data generated over the communication channel. This approach has the dual bene- by hundreds of sensors embedded in our everyday lives, coupled fit of offering the complete abstraction of external devices whenthe with rapid breakthroughs in data analytics and machine learning, particular details of the communication process are unimportant, has given the promise of a trillion-dollar economy [1]. Now more as well as utmost flexibility and control over the network protocol than ever, businesses and governments are relying on data-driven when the application requires it. We describe the requirements for insights to optimize industrial processes, guide management deci- this integration at the different levels of the model-driven develop- sions, and draft public policies. ment stack and present the different design and implementation options when possible. We corroborate some of our recommenda- 2.2 Distributed Real-time Systems tions by conducting an experimental analysis using Papyrus-RT, Our application domain encompasses distributed soft-realtime sys- an MDSD tool for embedded and realtime systems, as a testbed. tems built upon message passing. In particular, we consider dis- The rest of this paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we in- tributed applications that adopt the Actor model of concurrency [2]. troduce our intended application domain and introduce our testbed The actor concurrency model proclaims computational entities, platform. We present our main approach in Section 3 and conduct denoted actors, as first-class citizens; much like objects in Object- our experimental analysis in Section 4. We highlight other tools Oriented Programming. An actor is a unit of execution (possibly and attempts in the literature to integrate into the IoT in Section 5. only conceptual) that, in response to a message it receives, can Section 6 concludes this work. concurrently perform any sequence of three possible actions: up- date its own internal state, send messages to other actors, and 2 BACKGROUND create/destroy other actors. Actors have well-defined interfaces that abstract their internal 2.1 IoT Applications states and govern the way they interact with other actors. The in- While an IoT application can be composed of a multitude of compo- terface of an actor exposes special communication points known as nents, they can generally be grouped into five categories: physical ports. Ports are linked using channels that mediate communication objects, gateway devices, people, services, and middlewares. and dictate which actors are allowed to communicate via a given interface. Physical objects. Physical objects, or Things, are everyday de- The actor paradigm continues to prove itself as one of the premier vices augmented with sensors and/or actuators and serve a specific choices for the design of scalable and highly-distributed systems, purpose. These devices are often equipped with a short-range com- as evident by its adoption in concurrent languages such as Erlang munication chip such as RFID, Bluetooth, or ZigBee, and their com- and Scala. Its inherently concurrent, modular, decoupled, and fault- munication is restricted to immediate gateway devices. Common tolerant structure, lessen many of the problems associated with examples in a smart home application include smart light bulbs, distributed systems and alleviate the developers from having to deal electronic locks, and smart thermometers. with concurrency control and thread management. In short, the Gateway Devices. Due to their constrained nature, physical ob- actor model makes it easier to write correct concurrent and parallel jects are not typically capable of communicating with the outside programs, by design. It is therefore to no surprise that a signifi- world. Instead, they rely on gateway devices, also known as IoT cant number of model-driven development tools and languages for hubs. A gateway is a small computing device equipped with mul- real-time systems also adopts this model. Examples includes: Math- tiple radio technologies to manage Physical Objects, as well as Work’s Simulink, The Generic Modeling Environment (GME) [22], LAN interfaces, such as Ethernet or WiFi, to connect to Internet Real-Time Object-Oriented Modeling (ROOM) [32], and Ptolemy services. Gateway devices vary in capabilities, but are typically [12], just to name a few. programmable and provide an API that allows external actors to monitor and control connected Things. Examples include Sam- sung’s SmartThings Hub, Wink Hub, and Raspberry Pies running 2.3 The Model-Driven Development Stack the open source openHAB software, to name a few. In this work, In general, we can identify three components in a typical model-
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Document Databases, JSON, Mongodb 17
    MI-PDB, MIE-PDB: Advanced Database Systems http://www.ksi.mff.cuni.cz/~svoboda/courses/2015-2-MIE-PDB/ Lecture 13: Document Databases, JSON, MongoDB 17. 5. 2016 Lecturer: Martin Svoboda [email protected] Authors: Irena Holubová, Martin Svoboda Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University in Prague Course NDBI040: Big Data Management and NoSQL Databases Document Databases Basic Characteristics Documents are the main concept Stored and retrieved XML, JSON, … Documents are Self-describing Hierarchical tree data structures Can consist of maps, collections, scalar values, nested documents, … Documents in a collection are expected to be similar Their schema can differ Document databases store documents in the value part of the key-value store Key-value stores where the value is examinable Document Databases Suitable Use Cases Event Logging Many different applications want to log events Type of data being captured keeps changing Events can be sharded by the name of the application or type of event Content Management Systems, Blogging Platforms Managing user comments, user registrations, profiles, web-facing documents, … Web Analytics or Real-Time Analytics Parts of the document can be updated New metrics can be easily added without schema changes E-Commerce Applications Flexible schema for products and orders Evolving data models without expensive data migration Document Databases When Not to Use Complex Transactions Spanning Different Operations Atomic cross-document operations Some document databases do support (e.g., RavenDB) Queries against Varying Aggregate Structure Design of aggregate is constantly changing → we need to save the aggregates at the lowest level of granularity i.e., to normalize the data Document Databases Representatives Lotus Notes Storage Facility JSON JavaScript Object Notation Introduction • JSON = JavaScript Object Notation .
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Grid Serialization Comparison
    Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Sep 28, 2021 Smart Grid Serialization Comparison Petersen, Bo Søborg; Bindner, Henrik W.; You, Shi; Poulsen, Bjarne Published in: Computing Conference 2017 Link to article, DOI: 10.1109/SAI.2017.8252264 Publication date: 2017 Document Version Peer reviewed version Link back to DTU Orbit Citation (APA): Petersen, B. S., Bindner, H. W., You, S., & Poulsen, B. (2017). Smart Grid Serialization Comparison. In Computing Conference 2017 (pp. 1339-1346). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SAI.2017.8252264 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Computing Conference 2017 18-20 July 2017 | London, UK Smart Grid Serialization Comparision Comparision of serialization for distributed control in the context of the Internet of Things Bo Petersen, Henrik Bindner, Shi You Bjarne Poulsen DTU Electrical Engineering DTU Compute Technical University of Denmark Technical University of Denmark Lyngby, Denmark Lyngby, Denmark [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—Communication between DERs and System to ensure that the control messages are received within a given Operators is required to provide Demand Response and solve timeframe, depending on the needs of the power grid.
    [Show full text]
  • Spindle Documentation Release 2.0.0
    spindle Documentation Release 2.0.0 Jorge Ortiz, Jason Liszka June 08, 2016 Contents 1 Thrift 3 1.1 Data model................................................3 1.2 Interface definition language (IDL)...................................4 1.3 Serialization formats...........................................4 2 Records 5 2.1 Creating a record.............................................5 2.2 Reading/writing records.........................................6 2.3 Record interface methods........................................6 2.4 Other methods..............................................7 2.5 Mutable trait...............................................7 2.6 Raw class.................................................7 2.7 Priming..................................................7 2.8 Proxies..................................................8 2.9 Reflection.................................................8 2.10 Field descriptors.............................................8 3 Custom types 9 3.1 Enhanced types..............................................9 3.2 Bitfields..................................................9 3.3 Type-safe IDs............................................... 10 4 Enums 13 4.1 Enum value methods........................................... 13 4.2 Companion object methods....................................... 13 4.3 Matching and unknown values...................................... 14 4.4 Serializing to string............................................ 14 4.5 Examples................................................. 14 5 Working
    [Show full text]
  • Rdf Repository Replacing Relational Database
    RDF REPOSITORY REPLACING RELATIONAL DATABASE 1B.Srinivasa Rao, 2Dr.G.Appa Rao 1,2Department of CSE, GITAM University Email:[email protected],[email protected] Abstract-- This study is to propose a flexible enable it. One such technology is RDF (Resource information storage mechanism based on the Description Framework)[2]. RDF is a directed, principles of Semantic Web that enables labelled graph for representing information in the information to be searched rather than queried. Web. This can be perceived as a repository In this study, a prototype is developed where without any predefined structure the focus is on the information rather than the The information stored in the traditional structure. Here information is stored in a RDBMS’s requires structure to be defined structure that is constructed on the fly. Entities upfront. On the contrary, information could be in the system are connected and form a graph, very complex to structure upfront despite the similar to the web of data in the Internet. This tremendous potential offered by the existing data is persisted in a peculiar way to optimize database systems. In the ever changing world, querying on this graph of data. All information another important characteristic of information relating to a subject is persisted closely so that in a system that impacts its structure is the reqeusting any information of a subject could be modification/enhancement to the system. This is handled in one call. Also, the information is a big concern with many software systems that maintained in triples so that the entire exist today and there is no tidy approach to deal relationship from subject to object via the with the problem.
    [Show full text]
  • CBOR (RFC 7049) Concise Binary Object Representation
    CBOR (RFC 7049) Concise Binary Object Representation Carsten Bormann, 2015-11-01 1 CBOR: Agenda • What is it, and when might I want it? • How does it work? • How do I work with it? 2 CBOR: Agenda • What is it, and when might I want it? • How does it work? • How do I work with it? 3 Slide stolen from Douglas Crockford History of Data Formats • Ad Hoc • Database Model • Document Model • Programming Language Model Box notation TLV 5 XML XSD 6 Slide stolen from Douglas Crockford JSON • JavaScript Object Notation • Minimal • Textual • Subset of JavaScript Values • Strings • Numbers • Booleans • Objects • Arrays • null Array ["Sunday", "Monday", "Tuesday", "Wednesday", "Thursday", "Friday", "Saturday"] [ [0, -1, 0], [1, 0, 0], [0, 0, 1] ] Object { "name": "Jack B. Nimble", "at large": true, "grade": "A", "format": { "type": "rect", "width": 1920, "height": 1080, "interlace": false, "framerate": 24 } } Object Map { "name": "Jack B. Nimble", "at large": true, "grade": "A", "format": { "type": "rect", "width": 1920, "height": 1080, "interlace": false, "framerate": 24 } } JSON limitations • No binary data (byte strings) • Numbers are in decimal, some parsing required • Format requires copying: • Escaping for strings • Base64 for binary • No extensibility (e.g., date format?) • Interoperability issues • I-JSON further reduces functionality (RFC 7493) 12 BSON and friends • Lots of “binary JSON” proposals • Often optimized for data at rest, not protocol use (BSON ➔ MongoDB) • Most are more complex than JSON 13 Why a new binary object format? • Different design goals from current formats – stated up front in the document • Extremely small code size – for work on constrained node networks • Reasonably compact data size – but no compression or even bit-fiddling • Useful to any protocol or application that likes the design goals 14 Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) 15 “Sea Boar” “Sea Boar” 16 Design goals (1 of 2) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Incorparating the Actor Model Into SCIVE on an Abstract Semantic Level
    Incorparating the Actor Model into SCIVE on an Abstract Semantic Level Christian Frohlich¨ ∗ Marc E. Latoschik† AI and VR Group, Bielefeld University AI and VR Group, Bielefeld University. ABSTRACT Since visual perception is very important for generating immer- sive environments, most VR applications focus on the graphical This paper illustrates the temporal synchronization and process flow simulation output. Tools like OpenGL Performer, Open Inven- facilities of a real-time simulation system which is based on the ac- tor [12], Open Scene Graph, OpenSG [11] or the VRML successor tor model. The requirements of such systems are compared against X3D [8] are based upon a hierarchical scene graph structure, which the actor model’s basic features and structures. The paper describes allows for complex rendering tasks. Extension mechanisms like how a modular architecture benefits from the actor model on the field routing or rapid prototyping via scipting interfaces allow for module level and points out how the actor model enhances paral- new customized node types and interconnected application graphs. lelism and concurrency even down to the entity level. The actor idea is incorporated into a novel simulation core for intelligent vir- Purpose-built VR application frameworks adopt and extend these mechanisms, by adding in- and output customization, see e.g. tual environments (SCIVE). SCIVE supports well-known and es- TM tablished Virtual Reality paradigms like the scene graph metaphor, Lightning [4], Avango [13], VR Juggler [3] or the CAVELib . field routing concepts etc. In addition, SCIVE provides an explicit Also network distribution paradigms are often integrated to enable semantic representation of its internals as well as of the specific distributed rendering on a cluster architecture, as can be seen in virtual environments’ contents.
    [Show full text]
  • Msgpack Documentation Release 1.0
    msgpack Documentation Release 1.0 Author 2021-03-18 Contents 1 API reference 3 2 Advanced usage 9 Python Module Index 11 Index 13 i ii msgpack Documentation, Release 1.0 MessagePack is a efficient format for inter language data exchange. Contents 1 msgpack Documentation, Release 1.0 2 Contents CHAPTER 1 API reference msgpack.pack(o, stream, **kwargs) Pack object o and write it to stream See Packer for options. dump() is alias for pack() msgpack.packb(o, **kwargs) Pack object o and return packed bytes See Packer for options. dumps() is alias for packb() msgpack.unpack(stream, **kwargs) Unpack an object from stream. Raises ExtraData when stream contains extra bytes. See Unpacker for options. load() is alias for unpack() msgpack.unpackb(packed, *, object_hook=None, list_hook=None, bool use_list=True, bool raw=False, int timestamp=0, bool strict_map_key=True, unicode_errors=None, object_pairs_hook=None, ext_hook=ExtType, Py_ssize_t max_str_len=-1, Py_ssize_t max_bin_len=-1, Py_ssize_t max_array_len=-1, Py_ssize_t max_map_len=-1, Py_ssize_t max_ext_len=-1) Unpack packed_bytes to object. Returns an unpacked object. Raises ExtraData when packed contains extra bytes. Raises ValueError when packed is incomplete. Raises FormatError when packed is not valid msgpack. Raises StackError when packed contains too nested. Other exceptions can be raised during unpacking. See Unpacker for options. max_xxx_len options are configured automatically from len(packed). loads() is alias for unpackb() 3 msgpack Documentation, Release 1.0 class msgpack.Packer(default=None, *, bool use_single_float=False, bool autoreset=True, bool use_bin_type=True, bool strict_types=False, bool datetime=False, uni- code_errors=None) MessagePack Packer Usage: packer= Packer() astream.write(packer.pack(a)) astream.write(packer.pack(b)) Packer’s constructor has some keyword arguments: Parameters • default (callable) – Convert user type to builtin type that Packer supports.
    [Show full text]
  • Actor-Based Concurrency by Srinivas Panchapakesan
    Concurrency in Java and Actor- based concurrency using Scala By, Srinivas Panchapakesan Concurrency Concurrent computing is a form of computing in which programs are designed as collections of interacting computational processes that may be executed in parallel. Concurrent programs can be executed sequentially on a single processor by interleaving the execution steps of each computational process, or executed in parallel by assigning each computational process to one of a set of processors that may be close or distributed across a network. The main challenges in designing concurrent programs are ensuring the correct sequencing of the interactions or communications between different computational processes, and coordinating access to resources that are shared among processes. Advantages of Concurrency Almost every computer nowadays has several CPU's or several cores within one CPU. The ability to leverage theses multi-cores can be the key for a successful high-volume application. Increased application throughput - parallel execution of a concurrent program allows the number of tasks completed in certain time period to increase. High responsiveness for input/output-intensive applications mostly wait for input or output operations to complete. Concurrent programming allows the time that would be spent waiting to be used for another task. More appropriate program structure - some problems and problem domains are well-suited to representation as concurrent tasks or processes. Process vs Threads Process: A process runs independently and isolated of other processes. It cannot directly access shared data in other processes. The resources of the process are allocated to it via the operating system, e.g. memory and CPU time. Threads: Threads are so called lightweight processes which have their own call stack but an access shared data.
    [Show full text]
  • JSON JSON (Javascript Object Notation) Ecmascript Javascript
    ECMAScript JSON ECMAScript is standardized JavaScript. The current version is the 12th edition: Péter Jeszenszky Ecma International, ECMAScript 2021 Language Specification, Standard ECMA-262, 12th ed., June 2021. https://www.ecma- international.org/publications-and-standards/standards/ecma-262/ October 8, 2021 The next version currently under development is ECMAScript 2022: ECMAScript 2022 Language Specification https://tc39.es/ecma262/ Péter Jeszenszky JSON October 8, 2021 1 / 94 Péter Jeszenszky JSON October 8, 2021 3 / 94 JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) JavaScript Lightweight, textual, and platform independent data exchange format. Used for representing structured data. The term JavaScript is used for the implementations of ECMAScript by different vendors. Can be read and written easily by humans. See also: JavaScript technologies overview Can be generated and processed easily by computer programs. https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/JavaScript/JavaScript_technologies_overview Originates from the ECMAScript programming language. Website: https://www.json.org/ Péter Jeszenszky JSON October 8, 2021 2 / 94 Péter Jeszenszky JSON October 8, 2021 4 / 94 JavaScript Engines (1) Node.js (1) SpiderMonkey (written in: C/C++; license: Mozilla Public License 2.0) https://spidermonkey.dev/ A JavaScript runtime environment built on the V8 JavaScript engine The JavaScript engine of the Mozilla Project. that is designed to build scalable network applications. V8 (written in: C++; license: New BSD License) https://v8.dev/ Website: https://nodejs.org/ https://github.com/nodejs/node https://github.com/v8/v8/ License: MIT License The JavaScript engine of Chromium. Written in: C++, JavaScript JavaScriptCore (written in: C++; license: LGPLv2) https://developer.apple.com/documentation/javascriptcore https: Platform: Linux, macOS, Windows //github.com/WebKit/webkit/tree/master/Source/JavaScriptCore The JavaScript engine developed for the WebKit rendering engine.
    [Show full text]
  • Liam: an Actor Based Programming Model for Hdls
    Liam: An Actor Based Programming Model for HDLs Haven Skinner Rafael Trapani Possignolo Jose Renau Dept. of Computer Engineering Dept. of Computer Engineering Dept. of Computer Engineering [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT frequency being locked down early in the development process, The traditional model for developing synthesizable digital architec- and adds a high cost in effort and man-hours, to make high-level tures is a clock-synchronous pipeline. Latency-insensitive systems changes to the system. Although these challenges can be managed, are an alternative, where communication between blocks is viewed they represent fundamental obstacles to developing large-scale as message passing. In hardware this is generally managed by con- systems. trol bits such as valid/stop signals or token credit mechanisms. An alternative is a latency-insensitive design, where the system Although prior work has shown that there are numerous benefits is abstractly seen as being comprised of nodes, which communicate to building latency-insensitive digital hardware, a major factor dis- via messages. Synchronous hardware systems can be automatically couraging its use is the difficulty of managing the additional logic transformed to latency-insensitive designs, which we refer to as and infrastructure required to implement it. elastic systems [1–3]. Alternately, the designer can manually con- We propose a new programming paradigm for Hardware Descrip- trol the latency-insensitive backend [4, 5], we call such systems tion Languages, built on the Actor Model, to implicitly implement Fluid Pipelines. The advantage of exposing the elasticity to the latency-insensitive hardware designs. We call this model Liam, for designer is an increase in performance and flexibility in transforma- Latency-Insensitive Actor-based programming Model.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced JSON Handling in Go 19:40 05 Mar 2020 Jonathan Hall Devops Evangelist / Go Developer / Clean Coder / Salsa Dancer About Me
    Advanced JSON handling in Go 19:40 05 Mar 2020 Jonathan Hall DevOps Evangelist / Go Developer / Clean Coder / Salsa Dancer About me Open Source contributor; CouchDB PMC, author of Kivik Core Tech Lead for Lana Former eCommerce Dev Manager at Bugaboo Former backend developer at Teamwork.com Former backend developer at Booking.com Former tech lead at eFolder/DoubleCheck 2 Show of hands Who has... ...used JSON in a Go program? ...been frustrated by Go's strict typing when dealing with JSON? ...felt limited by Go's standard JSON handling? What have been your biggest frustrations? 3 Today's Topics Very brief intro to JSON in Go Basic use of maps and structs Handling inputs of unknown type Handling data with some unknown fields 4 A brief intro to JSON JavaScript Object Notation, defined by RFC 8259 Human-readable, textual representation of arbitrary data Limted types: null, Number, String, Boolean, Array, Object Broad applications: Config files, data interchange, simple messaging 5 Alternatives to JSON YAML, TOML, INI BSON, MessagePack, CBOR, Smile XML ProtoBuf Custom/proprietary formats Many principles discussed in this presentation apply to any of the above formats. 6 Marshaling JSON Creating JSON from a Go object is (usually) very straight forward: func main() { x := map[string]string{ "foo": "bar", } data, _ := json.Marshal(x) fmt.Println(string(data)) } Run 7 Marshaling JSON, #2 Creating JSON from a Go object is (usually) very straight forward: func main() { type person struct { Name string `json:"name"` Age int `json:"age"` Description string `json:"descr,omitempty"` secret string // Unexported fields are never (un)marshaled } x := person{ Name: "Bob", Age: 32, secret: "Shhh!", } data, _ := json.Marshal(x) fmt.Println(string(data)) } Run 8 Unmarshaling JSON Unmarshaling JSON is often a bit trickier.
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
    MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE LABORATORY Working Paper 190 June 1979 A FAIR POWER DOMAIN FOR ACTOR COMPUTATIONS Will Clinger AI Laboratory Working Papers are produced for internal circulation, and may contain information that is, for example, too preliminary or too detailed for formal publication. Although some will be given a limited external distribution, it is not intended that they should be considered papers to which reference can be made in the literature. This report describes research conducted at the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Support for this research was provided in part by the Office of Naval Research of the Department of Defense under Contract N00014-75-C-0522. O MASSAnuTsms INSTTUTE OF TECMGoOry FM DRAFT 1 June 1979 -1- A fair power domain A FAIR POWER DOMAIN FOR ACTOR COMPUTATIONS Will Clingerl 1. Abstract Actor-based languages feature extreme concurrency, allow side effects, and specify a form of fairness which permits unbounded nondeterminism. This makes it difficult to provide a satisfactory mathematical foundation for their semantics. Due to the high degree of parallelism, an oracle semantics would be intractable. A weakest precondition semantics is out of the question because of the possibility of unbounded nondeterminism. The most attractive approach, fixed point semantics using power domains, has not been helpful because the available power domain constructions, although very general, seemed to deal inadequately with fairness. By taking advantage of the relatively complex structure of the actor computation domain C, however, a power domain P(C) can be defined which is similar to Smyth's weak power domain but richer.
    [Show full text]