Concurrent Eiffel with SCOOP



SCOOP is Simple Concurrent Object-Oriented Programming. SCOOP allows developers to create object-oriented software systems which will take advantage of multiple, concurrently active execution vehicles. Additionally, SCOOP programming is done at a level of abstraction above the specific details of these implementation vehicles. Read further to get a better idea of what all this means, but for now, the primary message should be: SCOOP is concurrent software development made easy. The basic SCOOP ideas were first published as early as 1993. Since that time, considerable research and development has refined the SCOOP into the model that is implemented in EiffelStudio today.

Note: As you begin to use SCOOP, be sure to read the sections of the documentation on SCOOP practical matters and consider compiling and working with some of the many SCOOP examples.




  1. Avoid deadlocks: make certain that no two executing threads of control wait perpetually because each needs a resource which is under the control of the other.
  2. Ensure fairness: make certain that every participating thread of control eventually gets the opportunity to execute.


Indeed, SCOOP is such a model for concurrent computation. SCOOP differs from many other research efforts.





Object-oriented computation

Eiffel’s familiar model for object-oriented computation:

            x.f (a)

continues to be valid in SCOOP. But the way we understand the model differs slightly. In sequential Eiffel we would refer to this as a feature call, with a client calling feature f on a supplier object (the call’s target) currently attached to the entity x, and possibly passing arguments represented by a. We might alternatively refer to x.f (a) as a feature application; specifically the application of feature f to the object associated with x. This is fine in sequential Eiffel, but as you will see, in SCOOP we have to make a distinction between feature call and feature application. The distinction will become clear as we discuss the notions of processors and separate calls.


In the context of SCOOP, processor is an abstract notion.

Definition -- Processor: An autonomous thread of control capable of the sequential execution of instructions on one or more objects.

Info: About processors:
1) Processor is an abstract notion. As such it does not imply any specific concurrency implementation.
2) At any given time, every runtime object is handled by exactly one processor. A single processor can handle any number of objects.

In traditional, sequential Eiffel, although we realize that there is some processor which executes our systems, we don’t usually give it much thought. When we do, we generally regard it as a hardware entity on which our software can run.

The term processor (or, interchangeably, handler) is vital to SCOOP and thought of in a slightly different way than in traditional Eiffel, i. e., not just as a hardware processor. In a concurrent system, there may be any number of processors. Here the term is used in a more abstract sense than before. In SCOOP we think of a processor as any autonomous thread of control capable of applying features to objects. At the level of the SCOOP model, processors are not restricted to a particular type of hardware or software. So, if you were writing software for a hardware implementation with multiple processors, those real processors might correspond to the processors of SCOOP. But if you were writing a system using multiple process threads, then those threads might correspond to SCOOP processors.

Note: In the initial SCOOP implementation in EiffelStudio version 6.8, multiple process threads are the only supported concurrency mechanism. So, each SCOOP processor is implemented as a separate thread of execution in a single process.

Multiple processors in SCOOP come into play when feature calls on a particular object may actually be applied by a different processor than the one on which the feature call was issued. Of course, this is the important distinction between feature call and feature application that was mentioned above. In SCOOP, the processor which does the feature application may be different from the one that does the feature call. So you can think of feature call as being the logging or queuing of a request to have a feature applied.

Separate types and separate calls

SCOOP introduces the notion of separateness.

Definition -- Separate type: A type which has been declared including the keyword separate.

Definition -- Separate call: A feature call whose target is of a separate type.

The determining factor for the use of multiple processors is the use of separate types and separate calls. In a running system, every object is handled by a processor, but in the case in which there are no separate types or separate calls in a system, then only one processor will be used during execution, i. e., all calls will be non-separate ... and, consequently, there is no SCOOP-based concurrent processing present.

If an entity uses the keyword separate in its declaration, such as:

            my_x: separate X

it indicates that the application of features to an object attached to my_x may occur on a different processor than the one on which the feature call was made. Such calls, my_x.f, would be considered separate calls. Additionally, the type of my_x is the separate type separate X.

A feature call on my_x, say:


would generally be considered a separate call, simply because it is a feature call on an object of a separate type, and therefore could be applied on a different processor. You will see now that separate calls are valid only in certain contexts.

Access to shared resources

As mentioned above, the main issue with concurrent systems is the proper control of access to resources that can be shared among simultaneously executing processors.

Traditional solutions to the problem involve the use of “critical sections” of code. These are sections of code in which the shared resource is accessed. Only one processor is allowed to be executing the critical section at a time. So if one process wants to execute the critical section and another is already doing so, then the first must wait. Process synchronization schemes ensure this “mutual exclusion” of access to the critical section.

Rather than using critical sections, SCOOP relies on the mechanism of argument passing to assure controlled access. As a result, there is a restriction placed on separate calls.

Rule -- Separate argument: A separate call a_x.f (a) is valid only if a_x is an argument of the enclosing routine.

So, according to this rule, for a separate call to be valid, the target of the call must be a formal argument of the routine in which the call occurs. The code below contains both an invalid separate call and a valid one.

    my_separate_attribute: separate SOME_TYPE
            -- One routine
            my_separate_attribute.some_feature   -- Invalid call: Feature call on separate attribute
            enclosing_routine (my_separate_attribute) -- Separate attribute passed as argument
    enclosing_routine (a_arg: separate SOME_TYPE)
            -- Another routine
            a_arg.some_feature    -- Valid call: Feature call on separate argument

In the code above, my_separate_attribute is a class attribute declared as a separate type. In the first line in calling_routine a direct feature call is made to apply some_feature to my_separate_attribute. This is an invalid separate call. The second line calls feature enclosing_routine and passes my_separate_attribute as an argument. enclosing_routine takes an argument of type separate SOME_TYPE. Within enclosing_routine it is valid to call some_feature on a_arg.

See Also: The launch_producer feature of the producer-consumer example, a feature which exists for the purpose of compliance with the separate argument rule.

In calling_routine above, the call to enclosing_routine has a separate argument:

            enclosing_routine (my_separate_attribute) -- Separate attribute passed as argument

Because the argument my_separate_argument is of a separate type, then it is subject to be handled by a processor different from the one on which the call to enclosing_routine occurs. As a result, the execution of enclosing_routine will be delayed until the time that the processor which handles my_separate_argument is available for exclusive access. This type of delay is described by the Wait rule.

Rule -- Wait: A routine call with separate arguments will execute when all corresponding processors are available and hold them exclusively for the duration of the routine.

See Also:
1) The {PHILOSOPHER}.eat feature of the dining philosophers example. This feature has two separate arguments, and will wait to execute until the processors associated with both are available.
2) How the Wait rule is implemented in EiffelStudio.

Controlled expressions

Valid targets for separate calls, like a_arg in enclosing_routine above are said to be controlled.

Definition -- Controlled/uncontrolled expression: An expression is controlled if it is attached and either:
1) It is of a non-separate type
2) It is of a separate type and it is handled by the same processor as one of the separate arguments to the enclosing routine.

Otherwise it is uncontrolled.

What the definition of controlled expression means is that such an expression is controlled with respect to the processor handling the context in which the expression is used (the current context) ... and that means that all objects necessary to the expression are under control of (available for exclusive access by) the current processor and cannot be modified by other processors.

Synchronous and asynchronous feature calls

As stated above, when we think of the execution of sequential Eiffel, we tend to equate feature call and feature application. That is, it is expected that for a sequence of two feature calls:


that the feature application of x.f will complete before y.g begins.

In concurrent Eiffel with SCOOP things are different. This is because a particular feature call, x.f, may occur on one processor, and the consequent feature application (of feature f to x) may occur on a different processor.

Definition -- Synchronous feature call: A feature call in which the execution of the calling client does not proceed until the feature application has completed.

Definition -- Asynchronous feature call: A feature call which causes the “logging” of a request by a client for the associated feature application to be executed by the supplier’s processor.

After an asynchronous feature call, the execution of the client proceeds immediately, possibly in parallel with the application of the feature on some other processor. We'll revisit this point after a look at what it takes for a call to be synchronous or asynchronous.

What makes a call synchronous or asynchronous?

First, every feature call is either a synchronous feature call or an asynchronous feature call. For a particular call, the following rules determine which it is:

A feature call is synchronous in the following cases:

S1 It is a non-separate call.
S2 It is a separate call:
S2.1 To a query, or
S2.2 To a command which has at least one actual argument which is of a reference type and either
S2.2.1 A separate argument of the enclosing routine, or
S2.2.2 Current.

A feature call is asynchronous in the following case:

A1 It is a separate call to a command with no arguments, or arguments not meeting the criteria of S2.2 above.

Let’s look a little closer at those cases determining synchronous calls.

Case S1 is the case of typical sequential Eiffel, where all calls are non-separate, and therefore synchronous. Of course, even in concurrent Eiffel with SCOOP, plenty of non-separate calls will occur, and these will be synchronous.

Case S2.1 says that if a separate call is a query it must be synchronous. This is because even though the feature application will probably occur on a different processor, the instructions following the query will likely depend up on the result of the query, so they must wait until the feature application completes. This situation is known as wait by necessity.

Case S2.2 describes a situation in which a call provides at least one actual argument that is Current or is a separate formal argument of the call’s enclosing routine. In this case the client is calling a procedure and passing arguments which are controlled in the context of the calling routine. That is, the actual arguments are objects upon which the client processor has exclusive access in the enclosing routine. In order for the supplier processor to be able to apply the feature (presumably accessing the argument objects in the process), the client must pass its exclusive access to these objects on to the supplier. This is done through a mechanism called access passing. Because the client has passed its exclusive access to the supplier processor, it cannot continue execution until the called feature has been applied by the supplier processor, and the supplier processor has restored the exclusive access back to the client. Therefore, this type of call must be synchronous.

Now consider the only case, Case A1, determining asynchronous calls.

Separate calls to commands are asynchronous (except as in case S2.2). This means that when a client executes an asynchronous feature call, it “logs” the need for its associated feature application. But then rather than waiting for the feature application to complete, the client routine continues execution of instructions beyond the asynchronous call.

It is in this case that concurrent computation is achieved. The processor of the client object is free to continue processing while the processor handling the target of the asynchronous feature call applies that feature.

Design by Contract and SCOOP

The backbone of the Eiffel Method is design by contract. Preconditions, postconditions, and class invariants are used in Eiffel for extending software interfaces into software specification. This is essentially the same in concurrent Eiffel with SCOOP as it is in traditional, sequential Eiffel. However, because of the concurrent nature of processing under SCOOP, the runtime semantics of the elements of Design by Contract are different for concurrent systems.


The role of the precondition is somewhat different in SCOOP than in sequential Eiffel. In non-concurrent Eiffel we view the precondition of a routine as defining a set of obligations on potential callers of the routine. That is, the set of conditions that must be true before correct execution of the routine can be expected. So, we could look at the precondition clauses in sequential Eiffel as correctness conditions. A typical example might be a square root routine that returns the square root of a passed argument value. A precondition clause, i. e., a correctness condition, for this routine will be that the argument must be non-negative. It is the responsibility of the caller to ensure that this property of the argument holds at the time of the feature call.

In concurrent Eiffel, the same correctness conditions are still valid, but there are cases in which we must view the clients role here a little differently. In the case of a precondition clause that depends upon an uncontrolled object, even if the client tests the condition ahead of the call, there is no assurance that action by some other concurrent processor may have invalidated the precondition clause between the time that the check was made and the time that the feature application takes place. So, the client cannot be held responsible establishing that this clause holds. This type of precondition clause is called an uncontrolled precondition clause.

Definition -- Controlled/uncontrolled assertion (precondition or postcondition) clause: A precondition or postcondition clause for a feature f is controlled if, after substitution of actual arguments for formal arguments, the clause involves only calls on entities which are controlled in the context of the routine which is the caller of f.

Otherwise it is an uncontrolled assertion (precondition or postcondition) clause.

So, the determination of whether a particular precondition or postcondition clause is controlled or uncontrolled depends upon the context of the calling routine. That means that a particular clause on feature f might be considered controlled when f is called by one caller, but uncontrolled when called by a different caller.

Uncontrolled precondition clauses demand an adaptation of precondition semantics:

Info: A violation of a controlled precondition clause will cause an exception in the caller as soon as the violation is detected. A violation of an uncontrolled precondition clause does not result in an exception in the caller. Rather, the feature application waits to execute until such time as the precondition clause holds.

So, the client's responsibility is limited to those precondition clauses that are controlled. Uncontrolled precondition clauses become wait conditions.

See Also: The {PRODUCER}.store feature in the producer-consumer example. When called by {PRODUCER}.produce it becomes a wait condition.


As with preconditions the effect of concurrent execution can make a difference in how postconditions are viewed.

If a routine has executed correctly, then the postcondition of the routine will hold at the time that it terminates ... this is true whether or not concurrency is involved. However, when a postcondition involves separate calls or entities, clients must be cautious about how they depend upon the state guaranteed by postconditions.

Class invariants

The separate argument rule above tells us that separate calls are valid only on targets which are formal arguments of their enclosing routines. Because class invariants are not routines and therefore have no arguments, separate calls are not allowed in class invariants.

Info: Technically, it should be possible in a class invariant to code an inline agent that gets passed arguments of separate types, then execute separate calls within the inline agent. But generally, it can be assumed that class invariants contain no separate calls.

The semantics of class invariants will be the same as in sequential Eiffel, precisely because invariants must include only non-spearate calls. To put it the terms of SCOOP, the class invariant ensuring the validity of any particular object will be evaluated entirely by the processor handling that object.