A) Overall Recommendation:
- Weak Accept
B) Confidence in your rating:
- Confident, but I am not an expert
C) Main field(s) of the paper:
- Concurrency and distribution
D) Strengths of the paper:
- important topic for TOOLS USA
- Innovative results
- Increasingly important for practitioners
- Adequate English considering a foreign speaker
E) Drawbacks of the paper:
- See specific comments below.
- Somewhat long for the content.
- Not always clear
F) General comments:
G) Detailed comments to the Author:
- 1.1.2 First sentence. Also cite Booch 91 and Firesmith 93.
- 1.1.2 Last sentence. Not justified if regression testing is
automated.
- 1.2.3 b Dining philosophers use chopsticks on rice, not forks!!! It
is critical that a single utensil is not adequate to eat. With forks,
there is far less potential for dead-lock and starvation. Also, this
design is less useful and likely in a language (like C++) that does
not support concurrency.
- 2.1.2a Synchronizaton Do your mean synchronous (synchronizing two
threads like an Ada rendesvouz) or sequential (involving only a single
thread like C++)?
- 2.1.3 last paragraph. Needs better, clearer explaination as to why
messages do not define a syntactic scope.
Table of contents,
Referee comments