Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "ATL/EMFTVM"

< ATL
m
Line 1: Line 1:
= ATL EMF Transformation Virtual Machine (research VM) =
+
== ATL EMF Transformation Virtual Machine (research VM) ==
  
 
Since 2011, the ATL tools include a research VM (EMFTVM), which allows for experimentation with advanced language features. Currently, these features include:
 
Since 2011, the ATL tools include a research VM (EMFTVM), which allows for experimentation with advanced language features. Currently, these features include:

Revision as of 04:32, 15 July 2011

ATL EMF Transformation Virtual Machine (research VM)

Since 2011, the ATL tools include a research VM (EMFTVM), which allows for experimentation with advanced language features. Currently, these features include:

  • New bytecode format with explicit representation of rules
  • Compiler defined as higher-order ATL transformation
  • Multiple rule inheritance
  • Module import that works with rule inheritance
  • Closures
  • Multiple dispatch for helper methods
  • Lazy implementation of OCL collections

EMFTVM is currently only available from ATL CVS, but will be included in the next ATL release (3.3). As a temporary measure, EMFTVM can be downloaded as an ATL add-on for ATL 3.1 or up from http://soft.vub.ac.be/soft/research/mdd/emftvm

Architecture

The EMF Transformation Virtual Machine (EMFTVM) is derived from the current ATL VMs and bytecode format. However, instead of using a proprietary XML format, it stores its bytecode as EMF models, such that they may be manipulated by model transformations. A special EMF resource implementation allows EMFTVM models to be stored in binary format, which is faster to load and save, and results in smaller files.

Apart from the standard ATL bytecode primitives, such as modules, fields, and operations, EMFTVM bytecode includes rules and code blocks. Fig. 1 shows the structure of rules and code blocks. Code blocks are executable lists of instructions, and have a number of local variables and a local stack space. Operation bodies and field initialisers are represented as code blocks in EMFTVM. Code blocks may also have nested code blocks, which can be manipulated and invoked from its containing block. These nested code blocks therefore effectively represent closures, which are nameless functions that can be passed as parameters to other functions. Closures are helpful for the implementation of OCL's higher-order operations, such as select and collect, which are parametrised by nested OCL expressions.

Structure of EMFTVM rules and code blocks
Fig. 1: Structure of EMFTVM rules and code blocks

Rules consist of input and output rule elements, a matcher code block, applier code block, and post-apply code block. The matcher code block takes potential input element candidates as parameters, and returns a boolean value, representing a match. The applier code block takes the input and (newly created) output elements as parameters, and assigns the bindings of the output elements. The post-apply code block also takes the input and output elements as parameters, and performs any (imperative) post-processing specified in the rule. Execution of rules is therefore done in three phases: (1) matching; only input elements are guaranteed to be present, (2) applying; all output elements and traces are guaranteed to exist, but no bindings may have been applied, (3) post-apply; all input and output elements, traces, and bindings are guaranteed to be present.

Rules can be invoked manually, automatically, and recursively automatically. Manual rules correspond to ATL lazy rules (and called rules). Automatic rules correspond to ATL matched rules. Recursively automatic rules do not apply to ATL, but can be used when compiling other transformation languages to EMFTVM. Rules can also be marked as default, which causes that rule to create default traces. Default traces can be looked up using ATL's implicit tracing mechanism, and only one default trace may exist for any given source pattern. Non-default traces are just stored in the trace model, and are not used by the EMFTVM transformation engine.

Rules can have a number of super-rules, which are stored by name. This decision allows EMFTVM to resolve and link the super-rules of each rule at load-time, whereas storing a super-rule reference would have hardcoded the super-rule in the bytecode. This is comparable to how the Java VM does super-class lookup. Finally, rules can be marked as abstract, which means that they are only applied as part of a non-abstract sub-rule, but never by themselves.

To summarise: by explicitly representing rules in the bytecode, rule inheritance can be resolved at load-time. As a consequence, rules stored in imported modules can be taken into account, and super-rules can be redefined by module superimposition before the reference to the super-rule is resolved in the sub-rules. This solves the historic mismatch between ATL's rule inheritance and module superimposition.