5th ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Transactional Computing


To be held in conjunction with EuroSys 2010

April 13, 2010, Paris, France

The past five years have seen an explosion of interest in programming languages, systems, and hardware to support transactions, speculation, and related alternatives to classical lock-based concurrency. This workshop, the fifth in its series, will provide a forum for the presentation of research on all aspects of transactional computing. The scope of the workshop is intentionally broad, with the goal of encouraging interaction across the languages, architecture, systems, database, and theory communities. Papers may address implementation techniques, foundational results, applications and workloads, or experience with working systems. Environments of interest include the full range from multithreaded or multicore processors to high-end parallel computing.

This year TRANSACT is co-located with EuroSys. We are applying for in-cooperation with ACM SIGPLAN, as in the past.

Final Program

Registration and Workshop Information

For online registration, hotel information, etc., see the EuroSys homepage.


Contact the program chair.

Previous Workshops

TRANSACT 2009, Raleigh, NC
TRANSACT 2008, Salt Lake City, Utah
TRANSACT 2007, Portland, Oregon
TRANSACT 2006, Ottawa, Canada

Important Dates

Submission deadline:



January 22, 2010, 11:59PM PST (deadline is firm, but EXTENDED)

We extended the deadline because of conflicting due dates and response dates for related venues.
Sorry for the late notice - the Program Chair was out of the country.
Note: The program chair will have limited opportunity to check mail and the website over the weekend of January 23/24. If you are having submission problems or questions, don't panic; he'll get back to you as soon as he can and work to resolve the issue.

Author notification: March 1, 2010
Final copy due: April 2, 2010
Workshop: April 13 , 2010

Full call for papers:  html   pdf   text

Submit your paper

See the call for papers for submission specifications.

General Chair

Pascal Felber , Université de Neuchâtel

Program Chair

Eliot Moss , University of Massachusetts Amherst

Program Committee

Hans Boehm, HP Labs
Cliff Click, Azul Systems
Susan Eisenbach, Imperial College, London
Babak Falsafi, EPFL
Stephen Freund, Williams College
Dan Grossman, University of Washington
Steve Hand, Cambridge University (UK)
Milind Kulkarni, Purdue University
Jan-Willem Maessen, Sun Microsystems
Maged Michael, IBM Research
Martin Schoeberl, Tech. Univ. Wien
Tatiana Shpeisman, Intel Corporation
Mike Spear, Lehigh University
Mandana Vaziri, IBM Research

Steering Committee

Babak Falsafi, EPFL
Pascal Felber, Université of Neuchâtel
Rachid Guerraoui, EPFL
Dan Grossman, University of Washington
Tim Harris, Microsoft Research
Maurice Herlihy, Brown University
Tony Hosking, Purdue University
Suresh Jagannathan, Purdue University
Doug Lea, SUNY Oswego
Maged Michael, IBM Research
Eliot Moss, University of Massachusetts
Michael Scott, University of Rochester
Jan Vitek, Purdue University
Craig Zilles, University of Illinois

Conflicts of Interest

When submitting you will be asked to indicate committee members and potential reviewers with whom you have a potential conflict of interest. We quote from the SIGPLAN policy:

"Reviewers are also faced with issues related to being able to provide an objective review. In order to protect the integrity of the review process, it is very important that even the impression of a biased review process be avoided. Specifically, a conflict of interest may prevent a reviewer from being able to provide an unbiased review. A conflict of interest is defined as a situation in which the reviewer can be viewed as being able to benefit personally in the process of reviewing a paper. For example, if a paper was written by a member of your own group, a current student, your advisor, or a group that you are seen as being in close competition with, then the outcome of the review process can have direct benefit to your own status. If a conflict of interest exists, then you should decline to review a paper.

It may also be difficult to render an objective review for personal reasons. For example, if a paper was written by an employee of the same company, a former student, or a good friend, then you may or may not feel capable of reviewing it fairly. In any case in which you feel you may not be able to objectively review a paper, you should discuss the matter with the program chair, and the two of you should resolve the issue."