Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,172

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding code mobility

Fuggetta, A., Picco, G.P., Vigna, G.·1998·IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

Abstract

The technologies, architectures, and methodologies traditionally used to develop distributed applications exhibit a variety of limitations and drawbacks when applied to large scale distributed settings (e.g., the Internet). In particular, they fail in providing the desired degree of configurability, scalability, and customizability. To address these issues, researchers are investigating a variety of innovative approaches. The most promising and intriguing ones are those based on the ability of moving code across the nodes of a network, exploiting the notion of mobile code. As an emerging research field, code mobility is generating a growing body of scientific literature and industrial developments. Nevertheless, the field is still characterized by the lack of a sound and comprehensive body of concepts and terms. As a consequence, it is rather difficult to understand, assess, and compare the existing approaches. In turn, this limits our ability to fully exploit them in practice, and to further promote the research work on mobile code. Indeed, a significant symptom of this situation is the lack of a commonly accepted and sound definition of the term mobile code itself. This paper presents a conceptual framework for understanding code mobility. The framework is centered around a classification that introduces three dimensions: technologies, design paradigms, and applications. The contribution of the paper is two-fold. First, it provides a set of terms and concepts to understand and compare the approaches based on the notion of mobile code. Second, it introduces criteria and guidelines that support the developer in the identification of the classes of applications that can leverage off of mobile code, in the design of these applications, and, finally, in the selection of the most appropriate implementation technologies. The presentation of the classification is intertwined with a review of state-of-the-art in the field. Finally, the use of the classification is exemplified in a case study.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/32.685258

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,172

Metadata

Authors
Fuggetta, A., Picco, G. P., & Vigna, G.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Published
1998-05
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
342-361
ISSN
0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2106529232
Cited by
1,172
References
1
FWCI
74.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding code mobility. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/32.685258
The paper
Fuggetta, A., Picco, G. P., & Vigna, G. (1998). Understanding code mobility. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/32.685258

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.