Characterizing traits of coordination

TL;DR

This paper proposes objective criteria for recognizing coordination languages and technologies, focusing on black-box componentization, interface extensibility, and run-time customization, challenging the traditional computation-based distinction.

Contribution

It introduces a set of objective criteria to evaluate coordination capabilities, moving beyond the traditional computation-based contrast.

Findings

Criteria effectively distinguish coordination technologies from non-coordination ones.

Intel's Concurrent Collections and AstraKahn meet these criteria.

OpenCL, POSIX, and VMWare ESX also exemplify coordination features.

Abstract

How can one recognize coordination languages and technologies? As this report shows, the common approach that contrasts coordination with computation is intellectually unsound: depending on the selected understanding of the word "computation", it either captures too many or too few programming languages. Instead, we argue for objective criteria that can be used to evaluate how well programming technologies offer coordination services. Of the various criteria commonly used in this community, we are able to isolate three that are strongly characterizing: black-box componentization, which we had identified previously, but also interface extensibility and customizability of run-time optimization goals. These criteria are well matched by Intel's Concurrent Collections and AstraKahn, and also by OpenCL, POSIX and VMWare ESX.