Application Management and System Monitoring Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Application Management and System Monitoring — All Issues

  • Acronym: AMSM
  • Issues Count: 58
  • Description: All Issues
Open Closed All
All Issues

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
AMSMF2-37 Implications of UnloadConfiguration AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-36 Error return values missing of LoadConfiguration and UnloadConfiguration AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-46 Mapping of owner attribute not explained AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-45 TargetOperatingSystem attribute of CIM_OSVersionCheck defined as int AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-39 Purpose of a link from another AMS_DeploymentSpec AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-38 AMS_ESEDeployed missing AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-42 The transitions ALLOCATE and RECLAIM are unclear AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-41 No extension mechanism defined for Checks AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-44 RedInitState attribute of AMS_ESESpecType defined as required AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-34 Control response AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-43 SoftwareElementID is not a required attribute for AMS_ESESpecType AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-40 AMS_SEStartCPUDependency is specified on the association between two AMS_ESESpecs AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-35 Target not specified AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-19 CORBA/IDL PSM errors AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-49 The construction of global names of an instance is unclear. AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-51 Unclear what a AMS_DeploymentLinkSpec describes. AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-50 Unclear how a software system is deployed AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-48 Inconsistent use of start and shutdown AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-52 paragraph numbering AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-47 LinkID attribute of AMS_DeploymentLinkSpecType not specified as required AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-27 XSD specification of AMS_SupportedApplicationModel not consistent with model AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-26 Undefined order AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-28 AMS_RTSWIndication unpractical/incorrect definition AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-30 CIM_NextHopRoute topic defined In the DCPS PSM AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-29 AMS_SoftwareSystem Owner AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-24 Not all expected ESE state changes are described AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-23 PIM: No alternative models possible AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-33 StartUp/ShutDown DeploymentConfiguration AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-32 Signed integers in DCPS PSM AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-22 DCPS PSM: typo in field CIM_ProcessThead AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-21 AMS_StdState not explained AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-25 Inconsistent naming of compositions AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-31 figure 7.8 invalid AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-20 XML PSM: referenced type name incorrect AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSM12-4 Abstract classes link CIM_Action and CIM_Check can be instantiated AMSM 1.0b2 open
AMSM12-3 How is a kind of host specified AMSM 1.0b2 open
AMSM12-2 Error code AMSM 1.0b2 open
AMSM12-1 Aggregations/Associations in DCPS PSM: AMSM 1.0b2 open
AMSM11-7 The association with AMS_Host is redundant AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.1 Resolved closed
AMSM11-6 CIM_Process/CIM_Thread OSName attribute missing AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.1 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-4 Strange relation between methods and transitions AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-3 Transition CONTINUE (see fig 7.27) is missing AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-2 States like HALTED can not be realized as easy on platforms like VxWorks AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-1 Errors in AMSM.idl AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-8 Add motivation value QOS Destination_Order AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-7 Remove definition of QoS which are not functional relevant AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-6 QoS not defined correctly AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-5 Separate topic for CurrentState: AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-10 Define history for control topics AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-9 Inconsistent definition keys of Control Topics AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-12 Association AMS_StdHWUtilization missing in PSM AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-11 Clarify Owner and Owner object AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-18 Clarify inheritance of CIM classes: AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-17 Clarify inheritance of CIM classes AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-16 Section: 11.1.1.3 AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-15 Section: 7.1.8.4 AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-13 Typos class and interfaces: 7.1.4.3 AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed
AMSMF2-14 Section 7.1..8.4 AMSM 1.0b2 AMSM 1.0 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

Implications of UnloadConfiguration

  • Key: AMSMF2-37
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13234
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    When is it allowed to call UnloadConfiguration. Does this depends on the state of the concerned entity, for example SoftwareSystem

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Error return values missing of LoadConfiguration and UnloadConfiguration

  • Key: AMSMF2-36
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13233
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    For AMS_ConfManagement the possible return values of the operations LoadConfiguration and UnloadConfiguration are not specified

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add the AMS_NOK for those cases.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Mapping of owner attribute not explained

  • Key: AMSMF2-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13244
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    A number of XSD element definitions contain the optional attribute owner. Mostly the owner of an element is defined implicit by the enclosing element. The specification should explain the use of the owner attribute

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Precise the paradigm.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

TargetOperatingSystem attribute of CIM_OSVersionCheck defined as int

  • Key: AMSMF2-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13243
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    The TargetOperatingSystem attribute of CIM_OSVersionCheck has type int. It may be better to specify it as an enumeration e.g. AMS_OSType.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Purpose of a link from another AMS_DeploymentSpec

  • Key: AMSMF2-39
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13236
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    What is the purpose of an AMS_DeploymentLinkSpec referencing an AMS_DeploymentLinkSpec from another AMS_DeploymentSpec. This implies that one AMS_ESESpec can be used to deploy several AMS_ExecutabeSoftwareElement's. How relates this to AMS_OSUsed and AMS_HostUsed.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

AMS_ESEDeployed missing

  • Key: AMSMF2-38
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13235
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    The association between a AMS_ExecutableSoftware Element and AMS_DeploymentLink is not drawn in figure 7.7

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    This association is shown in the figure 7.12 ("Application Deployment class diagram") because it's an element of the Application Deployment package.
    Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

The transitions ALLOCATE and RECLAIM are unclear

  • Key: AMSMF2-42
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13240
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    The actions (control) associated with the transitions ALLOCATE and RECLAIM are not specified.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

No extension mechanism defined for Checks

  • Key: AMSMF2-41
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13239
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    The Check specification does not provide an extension mechanism to define implementation specific check as does the Action specification.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

RedInitState attribute of AMS_ESESpecType defined as required

  • Key: AMSMF2-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13242
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Why is the RedInitState attribute of AMS_ESESpecType defined as required while it is optional FTM. Why not specify a default value for RedInitState

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Define this attribute as optional in the XSD

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Control response

  • Key: AMSMF2-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13230
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    It is unclear if the control response will be used when e.g. StartUp method will be successfully executed. If it will be used than AMS_ErrorCode is missing the code AMS_OK.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The PIM does have this value but it was not mapped in PSMs.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

SoftwareElementID is not a required attribute for AMS_ESESpecType

  • Key: AMSMF2-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13241
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    The attribute SoftwareElementID of AMS_ESESpec is not specified as required. However in the PIM the SoftwareElementID is defined as a key property.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Define this attribute as required in the XSD.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

AMS_SEStartCPUDependency is specified on the association between two AMS_ESESpecs

  • Key: AMSMF2-40
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13238
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    The AMS_SEStartupCPUDependency defined as an association class between AMS_ESESpec. However it only depends on the CPU load of the system and not on the other AMS_ESESpec.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Target not specified

  • Key: AMSMF2-35
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13232
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Missing the relationship to the target ESE spec for AMS_SEShutdownDependency, and AMS_SEStartTimeDependency

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

CORBA/IDL PSM errors

  • Key: AMSMF2-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13063
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    CORBA/IDL PSM errors "8.6 page 129-172: Many IDL errors AMS_ApplicationSpecification.idl line 170: ""AMS_SecurityCheck CLASSID"" should be ""AMS_SecurityCheck_CLASSID"" line 173: ""AMS_SecurityCheck List"" should be ""AMS_SecurityCheckList"" line 174: ""AMS_ SecurityCheck ListIterator"" should be ""AMS_SecurityCheckListIterator"" AMS_CIM.idl line 846: missing ""readonly attribute"" definition line 848: missing ""readonly attribute"" definition AMS_AMSManagement.idl line 29: ""uint16"" must be ""AMS_uint16"" line 116: field identifier ""RTHS"" is also used on line 115 AMS_ApplicationSpecification.idl line 170: ""AMS_SecurityCheck CLASSID"" must be ""AMS_SecurityCheck_CLASSID"" line 173: ""AMS_SecurityCheck List"" must be ""AMS_SecurityCheckList"" line 174: ""AMS_ SecurityCheck ListIterator"" must be ""AMS_SecurityCheckListIterator"" AMS_LogicalHardware.idl line 41: Missing "";"" at EOL line 187: field identifier ""RTHU"" is also used on line 188"

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    fix it

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

The construction of global names of an instance is unclear.

  • Key: AMSMF2-49
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13248
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    The Naming Convention specifyies that it reuses the DMTF CIM naming convention which is based on so-called "weak" associations. However in the CIM specification a weak association results in the propagation of the key properties to the dependent class. In the AMSM specification this is not the case. For a association link from class A to class B the AMSM specification states that the global name of an instance B is constructed by concatenating the global name of an instance of A with the key values of B. However the AMSM specification does not specify the syntax for the construction of the global names. Further it should provide an example.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove any reference to DMTF CIM in section 7.1.2.1. Add an example. Specify more clearly how the global name have to be built.
    State that the value of a key attribute shall be unique for all the instance of a class.
    Add the class name and the attribute name in the global name in order to avoid the cases where classes have a key relation with themselves and another key relation with another class. These cases lead to mistake because key names are unique per class and not for the whole model.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Unclear what a AMS_DeploymentLinkSpec describes.

  • Key: AMSMF2-51
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13326
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Unclear what a AMS_DeploymentLinkSpec describes. In the description of the AMS_DeploymentLinkSpec class it is mentioned that a software item (application, software system, or software element) will have to run on some hosts. However an AMS_DeploymentLinkSpec has only an association with an AMS_ESESpec and thus with a software element and not with an application or software system. Explain how an AMS_DeploymentLinkSpec is related to an application or software system.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Applications and software system are not deployed on one host but on a network. Clarify this in the description of the AMS_DeploymentLinkSpec class.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Unclear how a software system is deployed

  • Key: AMSMF2-50
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13249
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    After loading the specification files the SoftwareSystem must be deployed. However the classes in the Management Package do not provide a method to access an AMS_DeploymentSpec directly. What is the way to deploy a SoftwareSystem.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Inconsistent use of start and shutdown

  • Key: AMSMF2-48
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13247
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    In the ActionCheckCase there is a CASE_START and a CASE_SHUTDOWN. When you call one state START than the other should be named STOP. In common in this document the term startup and shutdown is used, but for ESE and application it would be logical to use start and stop.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace CASE_SHUTDOWN with CASE_STOP, CASE_PRE_SHUTDOWN with CASE_PRE_STOP, CASE_POST_SHUTDWON with CASE_POST_STOP.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

paragraph numbering

  • Key: AMSMF2-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13508
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

    Paragraphs 7.1.3 to 7.1.14 should be 1 level higher (7.2 to 7.13) Paragraphs 10.1.1 to 10.1.4 should be 1 level higher (10.2 to 10.5) Create a paragraph 11.1.2 “Mapping principle” with paragraphs 11.1.1.1 to 11.1.1.5.4 in it. Paragraphs 11.1.2 to 11.1.6 should be 1 level higher (11.2 to 11.6) Paragraph 12.5.1 should be 12.6

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    agree

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

LinkID attribute of AMS_DeploymentLinkSpecType not specified as required

  • Key: AMSMF2-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13245
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    The attribute LinkID of AMS_DeploymentLinkSpecType is not specified as required, while the PIM specifies this attribute as the key.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Move this attribute to optional

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

XSD specification of AMS_SupportedApplicationModel not consistent with model

  • Key: AMSMF2-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13071
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    XSD specification of AMS_SupportedApplicationModel not consistent with model The AMS_SupportedApplicationModel class as defined in section 7.1.12 is specified to contain uncorrelated collections of AMS_ModelType, AMS_OsType, AMS_State, etc. The XSD specification defines the AMS_SupportedApplicationModel as a collection of records, where each record contains one AMS_ModelType, AMS_OsType, etc. Thus the XSD specifies an unwanted correlation between those element.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Unleash the correlation among these items.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Undefined order

  • Key: AMSMF2-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13070
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Undefined order The model does not define any order in execution of actions defined by the "CIM_Action" class and the "CIM_ActionSequence". This might be relevant, thus the model must express that. If it is defined in CIM, refer to the CIM document and location or copy the definition.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Specify that actions are ordered and how their execution depends on that order.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

AMS_RTSWIndication unpractical/incorrect definition

  • Key: AMSMF2-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13072
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    AMS_RTSWIndication unpractical/incorrect definition The attribute ElementCase equals the discriminant of the union Element and should be removed. As an preferred solution, the union can be replaced by just one string indicating the referenced topic, the union cases only differentiate in naming of the attribute, not the type. This allows setting a query on this field. The keylist is also incorrect, a union may not be part of the keylist. AMS_RTSW should also not be part of the keylist because an Element can have only one state at a time.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace the union Element with a struct as proposed. Modify the keylist as proposed as well.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

CIM_NextHopRoute topic defined In the DCPS PSM

  • Key: AMSMF2-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13221
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    CIM_NextHopRoute topic defined In the DCPS PSM CIM_NextHopRoute is defined while the PIM defines it as an abstract class. Remove this topic.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove the topic.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

AMS_SoftwareSystem Owner

  • Key: AMSMF2-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13073
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    AMS_SoftwareSystem Owner: The Owner is defined as a bounded sequence of maximum length 1. Expressing a non existing owner can be done by means of an empty string. Thus a sequence is not needed. As an advantage, Owner can be used in a query expression.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    modify as proposed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Not all expected ESE state changes are described

  • Key: AMSMF2-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13068
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Not all expected ESE state changes are described State changes that are initiated by the managed process are not described in the state diagram. For instance a managed process can terminate with returning a code indicating an error. There is no state change from RUNNING to ERROR however.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add a state change from RUNINNG to ERROR. This state change doesn't imply a new method since it's caused by the crash of the process.
    Specify that the state change "STOP" can be initiated by the process itself.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

PIM: No alternative models possible

  • Key: AMSMF2-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13067
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    PIM: No alternative models possible No way to specify alternative model types other than PROCESS, J2EE and CCM

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

StartUp/ShutDown DeploymentConfiguration

  • Key: AMSMF2-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13229
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    It is unclear why there is a StartUp and a Shutdown method on the AMS_DeploymentConfiguration class. It seems not logical how to manage executable software element through different views on the system

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Signed integers in DCPS PSM

  • Key: AMSMF2-32
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13227
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Signed integers in DCPS PSM All unsigned numerical values from the PIM are mapped to signed numbers in the DCPS PSM

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    All numerical values in the PIM are unsigned numbers, it so 'enough' to change all the numbers to unsigned equivalent.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

DCPS PSM: typo in field CIM_ProcessThead

  • Key: AMSMF2-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13066
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    DCPS PSM: typo in field CIM_ProcessThead must be "CIM_ProcessThread" (2 times). This is AMSM.idl from DCPS PSM line 594 and line 607.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    agree

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

AMS_StdState not explained

  • Key: AMSMF2-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13065
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    AMS_StdState not explained The referenced class AMS_StdState class is not defined nor explained in the PIM.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add a section on AMS_StdState.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Inconsistent naming of compositions

  • Key: AMSMF2-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13069
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Inconsistent naming of compositions Composistions SupportedModelType and SupportedOSType should have been defined plural in order to be consistent with the other compositions. This might be an issue for the whole document.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add an "s" to these compositions.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

figure 7.8 invalid

  • Key: AMSMF2-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13226
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    "optional LBM" stereotype The RedState stereotype is defined to be "optional FTM" and "optional LBM" while the targeted class is only "optional FTM". Remove the "optional LBM" stereotype.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove the "optional LBM" stereotype

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

XML PSM: referenced type name incorrect

  • Key: AMSMF2-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13064
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    XML PSM: referenced type name incorrect AMS_SupportedApplicationModel.xsd: AMS_SupportedMechanims_LinkType on line 160 must be AMS_SupportedMechanisms_LinkType.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change AMS_SupportedMechanims_LinkType with AMS_SupportedMechanisms_LinkType.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Abstract classes link CIM_Action and CIM_Check can be instantiated

  • Key: AMSM12-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13246
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    The Application Specification allows the abstract classes like CIM_Action and CIM_Check to be instantiated.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

How is a kind of host specified

  • Key: AMSM12-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13237
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    The AMS_DeploymentLinkSpec specifies the host for the deployment. This can be an kind of host (requested hardware). How is a kind of host specified.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Error code

  • Key: AMSM12-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13231
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    The AMS_ErrorCode key value are inconsistent, e.g. key 2 has value AMS_BADCONNECTIVITY, and key 2 has value AMS_BADFILTER

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Aggregations/Associations in DCPS PSM:

  • Key: AMSM12-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13053
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Aggregations/Associations in DCPS PSM: The mapping of aggregations and associations from the PIM model to the DCPS PSM are not always practical. Due to some mapping rules, references are defined more than once, causing potential inconsistencies (e.g. sequence of relations in one topic with Owner reference in the addressed topic). Rules sometimes disable query opportunities (e.g. use of sequences and unions). The DCPS PSM preferably should do without sequences and unions, and redundant information

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

The association with AMS_Host is redundant

  • Key: AMSM11-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13316
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    The association with AMS_Host is redundant. AMS_OperatingSystem has an association with AMS_Host, see figure 7.19 and 7.20 on page 96/97. This implies that the association with AMS_Host in Application Deployment Specification class diagram on page 57 is redundant

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    The association of AMS_DeploymentLinkSpec with AMS_Host on page 59 in figure 7.13 can be removed. Due to this change, Figure 7.12 also needs to be changed. A new association of AMS_DeploymentLink with AMS_OperatingSystem called AMS_OSUsed will then replace the association AMS_HostUsed. Also the PSMs have to be updated.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

CIM_Process/CIM_Thread OSName attribute missing

  • Key: AMSM11-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13220
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    CIM_Process/CIM_Thread OSName attribute missing According the PIM on page 39, CIM_Process and CIM_Thread have an attribute OSName. In the DCPS PSM there is only an attribute Name and not an OSName.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add the attribute Name to both of them (CIM_Process and CIM_Thread). Add also the attribute Name to CIM_UnixProcess and CIM_UnixThread, because these inherit the attribute Name from CIM_Process and CIM_Thread.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Strange relation between methods and transitions

  • Key: AMSMF2-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13039
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Strange relation between methods and transitions. The expected state and the methods to use to reach the state depend on the previous state. That is very strange and error prone. e.g. if the wanted state is STOPPED, case the current state is RUNNING, ShutDown must be called. In case the state is HALTED, Stop must be called.The method should denote the wanted state with this limitation that only specified state transitions are possible. Note that there is no operation to enter the HALT state. "

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree. Let's summarize: the StartUp methods are for reaching state "RUNNING" (transitions LOAD_START, START, LOAD_START_DIRTY; CONTINUE is lacking here), the Shutdown methods are for reaching state "EXECUTABLE" (transitions UNLOAD, RECOVER, RECOVER_DIRTY; STOP have to be removed here), the Load method reaches the state "LOADED" (transitions LOAD, LOAD_DIRTY), the Stop method reaches the "STOPPED" state (transitions HALT, STOP_HALTED; HALT should be replaced by STOP here), and the "Continue" method is a shorthand to reach the state "RUNNING" from the state "HALTED".
    Eventually, the state "HALTED" is no more reachable and a method "halt" has so to be added to reach it".

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Transition CONTINUE (see fig 7.27) is missing

  • Key: AMSMF2-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13038
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Transition CONTINUE (see fig 7.27) is missing. The description of transition STOP_HALTED does match transition CONTINUE but not STOP_HALTED (see Stopped state in 7.1.14.1.6).

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The description of the transition CONTINUE is to be added and the description of the transition STOP_HALTED must be fixed.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

States like HALTED can not be realized as easy on platforms like VxWorks

  • Key: AMSMF2-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13036
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    States like HALTED can not be realized as easy on platforms like VxWorks. For a single task this is easy, but GNATworks based applications can be multithreaded (thus have a process like model). Supporting a HALTED state for GNATworks on VxWorks would require a special profile to be supported. This state must be made optional.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Move the HALTED state from the Normal Package to the Maximum Control Package as long as the matching functions and transitions

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Errors in AMSM.idl

  • Key: AMSMF2-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13035
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Errors in AMSM.idl: Line 81: Undefined fields in keylist (remove ",CPULoad,MemoryLoad,DskUsage") Line 118: Missing ";" at EOL Line 120: Missing ";" at EOL Line 122: Keylist is defined of an missing structure, insert before line 122: struct AMS_ControlResponse

    { // identifier of the request long request_id; // the ErrorStruct AMS_ErrorStruct Error; }

    ; Line 154: typo "sequance" must be "sequence" Line 199: typo "sring" must be "string" Line 365: missing prefix "AMS_" before "LOAD_START_DIRTY" Line 372: AMS_State used before it is defined (used on line 154) Line 382: typo "AMS_StdMechanisms" should be "AMS_StdMechanism" Line 44, Line 466, Line 496, Line 524, Line 541, Line 561: Missing ";" at EOL Line 592, Line 594,Line 605,Line 607,Line 613: "list" must be "sequence" Line 635, Line 660, Line 695, Line 722, Line 733, Line 744, Line 755, Line 770, Line 781, Line 792, Line 803, Line 814, Line 825, Line 836, Line 847, Line 865, Line 906, Line 937, Line 954, Line 1153, Line 1171: Missing ";" at EOL

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    All these issues are syntactic errors.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Add motivation value QOS Destination_Order

  • Key: AMSMF2-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13044
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Add motivation value QOS Destination_Order: Motivation for DESTINATION_ORDER BY_SOURCE_TIMESTAMP is unclear. It might be related to the demand for executing different commands on the same element in time order. In that case motivate the choice. BY_SOURCE_TIMESTAMP requires aligned time awareness in order to function.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Reshape the section about QoS for the DCPS mapping.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Remove definition of QoS which are not functional relevant

  • Key: AMSMF2-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13043
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Remove definition of QoS which are not functional relevant: Unclear why TRANSPORT_PRIORITY, RESOURCE_LIMITS are defined. These QoS policies relate to system design and are functionally irrelevant.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Reshape the section about QoS for the DCPS mapping.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

QoS not defined correctly

  • Key: AMSMF2-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13041
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    QoS not defined correctly: The section uses the term "topics QoS" incorrectly. In DDS, Topic, DataReader and DataWriter QoS setting are defined independent of each other. This chapter incorrectly merges all QoS policies into one merged list. This should at least not be called topics QoS.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Reshape the section about QoS for the DCPS mapping.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Separate topic for CurrentState:

  • Key: AMSMF2-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13040
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Separate topic for CurrentState: The AMS_ExecutableSoftwareElement CurrentState aggregation is mapped in an AMS_State enumeration within the struct of AMS_ExecutableSoftwareElement. The CurrentState state however will evolve asynchronously from the state of other attributes. Further it is very likely that control over the CurrentState is located somewhere else. For that reason it is more practical to define a separate topic which via a weak reference will identify the state of the AMS_ExecutableSoftwareElement. Note: This statement is probably true for more state/statistics based information.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Separate the CurrentState attribute for the sake of the ease of implementability.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Define history for control topics

  • Key: AMSMF2-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13046
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Define history for control topics: As "Control topics" have no key, there will be a single place buffer. The HISTORY QoS policy for "control topics" is defined to be depth 1. This implies that only one control can be issued at the same time (in a system). Proposal would be to define a history for control topics of which the depth can be implementation specific. In that case the OWNERSHIP QoS policy is not needed either.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Reshape the section about QoS for the DCPS mapping.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Inconsistent definition keys of Control Topics

  • Key: AMSMF2-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13045
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Inconsistent definition keys of Control Topics This section states that "Control topics" have no key. AMSM.idl however defined "Element" as key for these topics. Remove "Element" as key.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove "Element" as key for control topics.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Association AMS_StdHWUtilization missing in PSM

  • Key: AMSMF2-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13048
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Association AMS_StdHWUtilization missing in PSM: No association to AMS_StdHWUtilization (see fig 7.20 on page 97) is defined. In the DCPS PSM that association is also missing. The figure also defines a 0..* multiplicity while on page 103 in the table 1..1 is specified for "AMS_RTHU <<optional HSM>>".

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    First, it's not AMS_StdHWUtilization (US way) but AMS_StdHWUtilisation (UK way). Second, it is an enumerate that has to be used as a parameter of the template AMS_Property. Eventually, multiplicity should indeed be 0 .. *. Thus modification of table in page 103

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Clarify Owner and Owner object

  • Key: AMSMF2-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13047
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Clarify Owner and Owner object: It is unclear from the specification what an "Owner" or "owner object" is, how does this relate to the PIM

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Precise the paradigm.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Clarify inheritance of CIM classes:

  • Key: AMSMF2-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13062
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Clarify inheritance of CIM classes: The PIM uses the inheritance UML symbol to show a relationship which is not really an inheritance relation (e.g. attributes are not inherited from CIM). Clarify the use of this inheritance symbol for these cases.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 13061 for disposition

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Clarify inheritance of CIM classes

  • Key: AMSMF2-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13061
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Clarify inheritance of CIM classes: The PIM uses the inheritance UML symbol to show a relationship which is not really an inheritance relation (e.g. attributes are not inherited from CIM). Clarify the use of this inheritance symbol for these cases.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Precise that the CIM package is not a full copy of CIM but a projection of a part of CIM (the useful part indeed).

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Section: 11.1.1.3

  • Key: AMSMF2-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13052
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Still information about root topics Related to Issue 11517, root topics were removed, but not all info was removed. Also page 278 section 11.1.1.5.2 last bullet ("root" elements).

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    remove this iformation

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Section: 7.1.8.4

  • Key: AMSMF2-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13051
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Enumeration misses PowerPC e500 family.

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    We need to find a comprehensive way to deal with all kind of extension. This may be expressed in a discussion paper and/or in future major revisions of the standard. Anyway, since it's still possible to add a new item in the enumeration in a non-standardized way, this issue doesn't preclude implementations.
    Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Typos class and interfaces: 7.1.4.3

  • Key: AMSMF2-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13049
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Typos class and interfaces: 7.1.4.3: "An AMS_Application is an interface" should be "An AMS_ExecutableSoftwareElement is an interface" 7.1.4.8 "An AMS_Application is an interface" should be "An AMS_SoftwareSystem is an interface" 7.1.7.16 "The AMS_SEStartDependency class" should be "The AMS_SEStartCPUDependency class" 7.1.7.18 "The AMS_SEStartDependency class" should be "The AMS_SEStartTimeDependency class"

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    just do it

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Section 7.1..8.4

  • Key: AMSMF2-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13050
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Willy Boenink)
  • Summary:

    Some strange definitions containing "%2B"

  • Reported: AMSM 1.0b2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AMSM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    remove

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT