skip to main content
10.1145/2687357.2687361acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessplashConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

From Actor Event-Loop to Agent Control-Loop: Impact on Programming

Published:20 October 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Event-loops and control-loops are the main control architectures adopted in actors and in agents, respectively. These architectures have a strong impact on the principles and discipline that can be adopted to design and program actors and agents. In this paper we develop this point, considering some main models/languages/technologies - ActorFoundry, Akka Actors, SALSA, AmbientTalk on the actor side and Jason and ALOO on the agent side - discussing and comparing them.

References

  1. Akka. Actor framework, 2010. http://akka.io/, Last Retrieved: Aug 12, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. J. Armstrong. Erlang. Communications of the ACM, 53(9):68--75, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. R. Bordini and J. Hubner. BDI agent programming in AgentSpeak using Jason. In F. Toni and P. Torroni, editors, CLIMA VI, volume 3900 of LNAI, pages 143--164. Springer, Mar. 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. R. Bordini, J. Hubner, and M. Wooldridge. Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak Using Jason. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Y. Brun, G. Marzo Serugendo, C. Gacek, H. Giese, H. Kienle, M. Litoiu, H. Müller, M. Pezz'e, and M. Shaw. Software engineering for self-adaptive systems. chapter Engineering Self-Adaptive Systems Through Feedback Loops, pages 48--70. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. R. C. Cardoso, M. R. Zatelli, J. F. Hubner, and R. H. Bordini. Towards benchmarking actor- and agent-based programming languages. In Proc. of the 2013 Workshop on Programming Based on Actors, Agents, and Decentralized Control, AGERE!'13, pages 115--126, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. L. Crnogorac, A. S. Rao, and K. Ramamohanarao. Analysis of inheritance mechanisms in agent-oriented programming. In IJCAI (1)--97, pages 647--654, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. T. V. Cutsem, S. Mostinckx, E. G. Boix, J. Dedecker, and W. D. Meuter. AmbientTalk: Object-oriented event-driven programming in mobile ad hoc networks. In Proc. of SCCC'07, pages 3--12, Washington, DC, USA, 2007. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. M. Dastani. 2apl: a practical agent programming language. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 16(3):214--248, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. E. W. Dijkstra. Cooperating sequential processes, technical report ewd-123. Technical report, 1965. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. E. W. Dijkstra. Letters to the editor: Go to statement considered harmful. Commun. ACM, 11(3):147--148, Mar. 1968. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. E. Gamma, R. Helm, R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-oriented Software. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. P. Haller and M. Odersky. Scala actors: Unifying threadbased and event-based programming. Theoretical Computer Science, 410(2--3):202--220, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. C. Hewitt and H. j. Baker. Actors and continuous functionals. Technical report, MIT/LCS/TR-194, 1979. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. K. V. Hindriks. Programming rational agents in GOAL. In R. H. Bordini, M. Dastani, J. Dix, and A. El Fallah Seghrouchni, editors, Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Platforms and Applications (2nd volume), pages 3--37. Springer-Verlag, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. E. Johnsen and O. Owe. An asynchronous communication model for distributed concurrent objects. Software & Systems Modeling, 6(1):39--58, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. E. B. Johnsen, R. Hähnle, J. Schäfer, R. Schlatte, and M. Steffen. ABS: A core language for abstract behavioral specification. In Formal Methods for Components and Objects, volume 6957 of LNCS, pages 142--164. Springer, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. H. Jordan, S. Russell, G. O'Hare, and R. Collier. Reuse by inheritance in agent programming languages. In Intelligent Distributed Computing V, volume 382 of Studies in Computational Intelligence, pages 279--289. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. K. Kambona, E. G. Boix, and W. De Meuter. An evaluation of reactive programming and promises for structuring collaborative web applications. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Dynamic Languages and Applications, DYLA '13, pages 3:1--3:9, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. R. K. Karmani, A. Shali, and G. Agha. Actor frameworks for the jvm platform: a comparative analysis. In Proc. of PPPJ'09, pages 11--20, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. J. O. Kephart and D. M. Chess. The vision of autonomic computing. Computer, 36(1):41--50, Jan. 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. S. Matsuoka and A. Yonezawa. Research directions in concurrent object-oriented programming. chapter Analysis of inheritance anomaly in object-oriented concurrent programming languages, pages 107--150. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. M. Miller, E. Tribble, and J. Shapiro. Concurrency among strangers: programming in E as plan coordination. In Trustworthy Global Computing, volume 3705 of LNCS, pages 195--229. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. A. S. Rao. AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In Proc. of MAAMAW'96, pages 42--55. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. A. S. Rao and M. P. Georgeff. BDI Agents: From Theory to Practice. In Proc. of ICMAS'95, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. A. Ricci and A. Santi. Designing a general-purpose programming language based on agent-oriented abstractions: the simpAL project. In Proc. of AGERE!'11, SPLASH'11 Workshops, pages 159--170, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. A. Ricci and A. Santi. Concurrent object-oriented programming with agent-oriented abstractions: The ALOO approach. In Proc. of the 2013 Workshop on Programming Based on Actors, Agents, and Decentralized Control, AGERE! '13, pages 127--138, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. A. Ricci and A. Santi. From actors and concurrent objects to agent-oriented programming in simpAL. In Concurrent Objects and Beyond -- Festschrift in Honor of Akinori Yonezawa, volume 8665 of LNCS. Springer, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. R. Ross, R. Collier, and G. O'Hare. AF-APL: Bridging principles and practice in agent oriented languages. In Programming Multi-Agent Systems, volume 3346 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 66--88. Springer, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. J. Schafer and A. Poetzsch-Heffter. CoBoxes: Unifying active objects and structured heaps. In Proc. of FMOODS'08, pages 201--219, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Y. Shoham. Agent-oriented programming. Artificial Intelligence, 60(1):51--92, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. T. Van Cutsem, C. Scholliers, D. Harnie, and W. De Meuter. An operational semantics of event loop concurrency in ambienttalk. Technical report, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. C. Varela and G. Agha. Programming dynamically reconfigurable open systems with salsa. SIGPLAN Not., 36(12):20--34, Dec. 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. C. A. Varela. Programming Distributed Computing Systems: A Foundational Approach. MIT Press, May 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. From Actor Event-Loop to Agent Control-Loop: Impact on Programming

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          AGERE! '14: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Programming based on Actors Agents & Decentralized Control
          October 2014
          146 pages
          ISBN:9781450321891
          DOI:10.1145/2687357

          Copyright © 2014 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 20 October 2014

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          AGERE! '14 Paper Acceptance Rate9of14submissions,64%Overall Acceptance Rate19of35submissions,54%

          Upcoming Conference

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader