Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
ff
to ensure that results are not a
ected by external factors such as garbage collection or
unrelated operating system activities. Furthermore, we would like to build an appropri-
ate test suite to test runtime monitoring tools for correctness. Although, at the moment
we only support the generation of a mock system written in Java, the design of the tool
makes it straightforward to extend to other languages — which we plan to do in the
near future.
References
1. Bodden, E., Hendren, L.J., Lam, P., Lhoták, O., Naeem, N.A.: Collaborative runtime verifica-
tion with tracematches. J. Log. Comput. 20(3), 707-723 (2010)
2. Colombo, C., Francalanza, A., Mizzi, R., Pace, G.J.: Extensible technology-agnostic runtime
verification. In: FESCA. EPTCS, vol. 108, pp. 1-15 (2013)
3. Colombo, C., Pace, G.J., Abela, P.: Compensation-aware runtime monitoring. In: Barringer,
H., et al. (eds.) RV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6418, pp. 214-228. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
4. Colombo, C., Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: Dynamic event-based runtime monitoring of real-time
and contextual properties. In: Cofer, D., Fantechi, A. (eds.) FMICS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5596,
pp. 135-149. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
5. Colombo, C., Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: Larva — safer monitoring of real-time java programs
(tool paper). In: SEFM, pp. 33-37 (2009)
6. Hudak, P.: Building domain-specific embedded languages. ACM Computing Surveys 28(4es),
196 (1996)
7. Meredith, P.O., Jin, D., Gri
th, D., Chen, F., Rosu, G.: An overview of the MOP runtime
verification framework. JSTTT 14(3), 249-289 (2012)
