The API can be simplified for the users by replacing various sequences with the new IDL4 map type.

IDL4 extends the IDL type system with the types coming from DDS X-Types (maps,bitset.struct inheritance,bitmasks), the D&C specification should be extended to support these types in the xsd

In section 6.4.11.5 (Semantics of LocalityKind), different values including "DifferentProcess" and "NoConstraint" are defined for the LocalityKind enumeration of the Component Data Model. In section 6.8.6.5 (Semantics of PlanLocalityKind), the constants for the PlanLocalityKind enumeration are defined for the Execution Data Model, also containg these two names mentioned above. The problem is that enumeration names are introduced into their parent scope. Thus, the definition of the PlanLocalityKind reusing the same names as used in the LocalityKind enumeration causes a name clash in the IDL.

Proposed resolution:

Add a prefix "Plan" to all the constants of the PlanLocalityKind enumeration.

In section 6.8.6.5, change the bullet list from

SameProcess: This value specifies that the component instances that the PlanLocality element referers to shall be started in the same process by the deployment engine.

DifferentProcess: This value specifies that the component instances that the PlanLocality element referers to shall be started in different processes by the deployment engine.

NoConstraint: This value specifies that there is no locality constraint for the component instances that the PlanLocality element refers to. The purpose of this special value is to enable to switch locality constraints temporarily off without loosing the structure of the DeploymentPlan, i.e. the PlanLocality class instance with its associations to InstanceDeploymentDescription can be kept for later reuse but has currently no impact on the execution of the DeploymentPlan.
to

PlanSameProcess: This value specifies that the component instances that the PlanLocality element referers to shall be started in the same process by the deployment engine.

PlanDifferentProcess: This value specifies that the component instances that the PlanLocality element referers to shall be started in different processes by the deployment engine.

PlanNoConstraint: This value specifies that there is no locality constraint for the component instances that the PlanLocality element refers to. The purpose of this special value is to enable to switch locality constraints temporarily off without loosing the structure of the DeploymentPlan, i.e. the PlanLocality class instance with its associations to InstanceDeploymentDescription can be kept for later reuse but has currently no impact on the execution of the DeploymentPlan.

Add a prefix "Plan" to all the constants of the PlanLocalityKind enumeration.

The resolution for issue 6392 introduced the ability
for a monolithic implementation to delegate some of its
ports to a resource.

To this effect, the ImplementationRequirement element
has three attributes, "resourceUsage", "resourcePort"
and "componentPort" to identify how the component
instance uses the resource.

In the deployment plan, the InstanceResourceDeployment-
Description element captures which resource was chosen
to satisfy the requirement. It has a "resorceUsage",
but neither "resourcePort" and "componentPort"
attributes.

This information is necessary in the deployment plan.

Proposed resolution:

Add "resourcePort" and "componentPort" attributes to
the InstanceResourceDeploymentDescription element, to
carry the information from the original implementation
requirement.

In section 6.8.12.2, add two attributes:

resourcePort [0..1]: The resource port used by the
component instance. Copied from the original
ImplementationRequirement.

componentPort [0..1]: The component port delegated
to or used by the resource. Copied from the
original ImplementationRequirement.

No Data Available

The Deployment Plan, in its Artifact Deployment Description
and Monolithic Deployment Description element, copies the
deployment requirements from the component data model, i.e.,
from the Implementation Artifact Description and Monolithic
Implementation Description, respectively.

However, while the deployment requirements for a monolithic
implementation are represented using the Implementation
Requirement element, Monolithic Deployment Description only
allows deployment requirements to be of type Requirement,
and is thus not able to completely capture the original
requirement.

This is an effect of the resolution of issue 6392, which
extended deployment requirements for monolithic
implementations in the component data model from
"Requirement" to "ImplementationRequirement", but neglected
to make a similar change to the Monolitic Deployment
Description.

This information may not be necessary in the deployment plan
in the first place, as an Instance Deployment Description
now, also as a result of this resolution, captures the
resources that were chosen to satisfy the monolithic
implementation's requirements.

As noted in the resolution, an issue to remove the copies
of deployment requirements should be raised separately. Here
it is.

Proposed resolution:

Remove the copies of deployment requirements, in both
Artifact Deployment Description and Monolithic Deployment
Description.

In section 6.8.2.1, "ArtifactDeploymentDescription
Description", change the last sentence from

Execution parameters and deployment requirements are
copied from the ImplementationArtifactDescription.

to

Execution parameters are copied from the
ImplementationArtifactDescription.

In section 6.8.2.3, "ArtifactDeploymentDescription
Associations", remove the "deployRequirement"
association.

In section 6.8.3.1, "MonolithicDeploymentDescription
Description", change the last sentence from

The execution parameters and deployment requirements
are copied from the MonolithicImplementationDescription.

to

The execution parameters are copied from the
MonolithicImplementationDescription.

In section 6.8.3.3, "MonolithicDeploymentDescription
Associations", remove the "deployRequirement"
association.

No Data Available

The resolution for issue 6435 split the former "execution
parameters" into "node execution parameters" and "component
execution parameters" within the Component Data Model, by
extending the MonolithicImplementationDescription element
to have separate "nodeExecParameter" and "componentExec-
Parameter" property lists.

However, the resolution neglected to make a similar change
to the Execution Data Model – the MonolithicDeployment-
Description element in the Deployment Plan only has a single
list of "execParameter" properties.

This should be changed to be in sync with the Component
Data Model.

Proposed resolution:

In section 6.8.3.3 (MonoliticDeploymentDescription
associations), remove the "execParameter" association.

Instead, add the following two associations:

nodeExecParameter: Property[*]
Execution parameters that are passed to the target
environment. Copied from the MonoliticImplementation-
Description.
componentExecParameter: Property[*]
Execution parameters that are passed to the primary
artifact. Copied from the MonoliticImplementation-
Description.

No Data Available

Section 9.3.5, "SatisfierProperty," defines the concrete
data types that a SatisfierProperty's value can assume,
depending on the SatisfierPropertyKind.

For the "Attribute" kind, it allows the value to be of a
(user-defined) enumeration type. It then says, "if the value
of the SatisfierProperty is of enumeration type, the value
of the Property is of type string, containing the enumeration
value that must compare equal to the SatisfierProperty value.

This is straightforward enough. E.g., it allows a
DomainAdministrator to enumerate the kinds of processors
in a domain,

enum Processors

;

and then to tag each node with a resource containing a
property of this type, its value specifying the actual
processor type of the node.

It seemed like a good idea. Yet this feature does not buy
much. The DomainAdministrator could just as well use an
attribute of type string to the same effect. The only
advantage is that the enumerated property allows the
DomainAdministrator to constrain the values that a
SatisfierProperty may have. But it's the DomainAdmininstrator
constraining himself, so it's not much of a constraint.

However, this feature does add a dependency on DynamicAny
for both the TargetManager and the Planner, which do not
know about any user-defined enumeration types. All the other
SatisfierPropertyKind options use basic IDL data types (long,
unsigned long, double or string).

So, because of the added complexity, and the low mileage, I
propose to remove enumerated properties from the spec.

Proposed resolution:

In section 9.3.5, "SatisfierProperty," change the fourth
and fifth bullet from:

For the Attribute kind, the value of the SatisfierProperty
is of type long, double, string, or an enumeration type.
In the case of long, double or string, the value of the
Property must be of the same type. If the value of the
SatisfierProperty is of enumeration type, the value of
the Property is of type string, containing the enumeration
value that must compare equal to the SatisfierProperty
value.

For the Selection kind, the value of the SatisfierProperty
is a sequence of type long, double, string, or an
enumeration type. The same rules as for the Attribute kind
apply.

To:

For the Attribute kind, the value of the SatisfierProperty
is of type long, double or string. The value of the
Property must be of the same type and compare equal to
the SatisfierProperty value.

For the Selection kind, the value of the SatisfierProperty
is a sequence of type long, double or string. The same
rules as for the Attribute kind apply.

No Data Available

Problem: The CCM DTD and SCA DTD in the assembly descriptors has the
capability to direct deployment of components on the same
processor. The capability is needed for deployment considerations to direct
which components are to be collocated on the same processor.
Example use case is there are devices in the system with the same
characteristics but when deploying the components, one wants to ensure that
certain components are deployed on the same processor not on different
processors with the same characteristics.
Recommended solution: Is to add an optional zero to many Host Collocation
element to the ComponentAssemblyDescription.

Hi,

The Deployment & Configuration XML Schema defines a Property element like:

<xsd:complexType name="Property">
<xsd:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:element name="name" type="xsd:string" />
<xsd:element name="value" type="Deployment:Any" />
<xsd:element ref="xmi:Extension" />
</xsd:choice>
<xsd:attribute ref="xmi:id" use="optional" />
<xsd:attributeGroup ref="xmi:ObjectAttribs" />
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:element name="Property" type="Deployment:Property" />

This allows for the following invalid Property file to be passed silently
by the XML Schema validator:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<Deployment:Property
xmlns:Deployment="http://www.omg.org/Deployment"
xmlns:xmi="http://www.omg.org/XMI"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.omg.org/Deployment Deployment.xsd">
<name>ORBSvcConf</name>
<value>
<type>
<kind>tk_string</kind>
</type>
<value>
<string>Foo</string>
</value>
</value>
<value>
<type>
<kind>tk_short</kind>
</type>
<value>
<long>123</long>
</value>
</value>
</Deployment:Property>

The model in 6.10.8 has a containment association with a cardinality one
for value. The schema generated from that model doesn't match the semantics
in the model. This is just an example. There are a lot of elements where
the semantics imposed by the schema are different from what is described in
the model. I am curious as to why this is allowed. It can be easily fixed
by changing the schema to:

<xsd:complexType name="Property">
<xsd:sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1">
<xsd:element name="name" type="xsd:string" />
<xsd:element name="value" type="Deployment:Any" />
<xsd:element ref="xmi:Extension" minOccurs="0" />
</xsd:sequence>
<xsd:attribute ref="xmi:id" use="optional" />
<xsd:attributeGroup ref="xmi:ObjectAttribs" />
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:element name="Property" type="Deployment:Property" />

Issue 3: Component Factory Lacking
Both the SCA and CCM has the capability of expressing factory concepts in
the assembly description. The factory concepts allow for the deployment
machinery to create components in the assembly from a component factory
that is a component of the assembly or service of the node/device.

Recommendation
Update SubcomponentInstantiationDescription to add an optional element that
can be used to reference a component in the assembly or a referenced
service that is a component factory. This new element should also contain
optional properties that can be used by the factory for component creation

Issue 2: AssemblyController Component Lacking
Lacking the capability of expressing a AssemblyController component in a
assembly component description. One use case is the SCA and the SWRadio
spec. The assembly controller is the component in assembly that is the main
controller and the Application proxy communicates with when specified.
Recommendation:
Add an optional AssemblyControllerComponent Element to the
AssemblyComponent description. The AssemblyControllerComponent Element
definition contains an attribute, which identifies the component in the
assembly that is the assembly controller component. Add
AssemblyControllerComponent Element as subsection to 6.4. Update section
6.4.9.1 figure. Update PSM XML for ComponentAssemblyDescription.

This also allows PSMs to constraint the definition to always none or
mandatory for a assembly controller.

Issue 1: New Requirement Satisfier Type
Unable to express a node/device characteristic as a set where each item is
an instance of the same characteristic class. For example, node/device may
have many runtimes, libraries, communication paths/QoS. One needs to be
able to express a characteristic such as runtime or library as one
characteristic with multiple instances, where each instance contains the
same requirement satisfier definition. For example, for runtime or library
characteristic each instance in the set would contain name and its value
and version and its value, as a set of instances of a characteristic that
contains name and version in this case. This would allow one to state the
set of libraries or runtimes in a consistent manner all belonging to the
runtime or library characteristic.

Right now for the D & C, I would have to define a RequirementSatisfier as
RunTime1 and RunTime2 instead of RunTime. I am able to express a
requirement as RunTime but this will not be matched against RunTime1 and
RunTime2.

Potential Recommendation
Add definition for RequirementSetSatisfier that contains 1 one to many
RequirementSatisfier. The constraint being the RequirementSatisfier
definition has to be the same except for the values.

Appears that an abstract definition is needed for the
RequirementSetSatisfier and RequirementSatisfier since a node or device can
have either or both of them, and they have common attributes (name,
resourceType).

This added capability would also cause changes to the update operation to
support this information.

At the moment, resources are committed and later released according to
a Deployment Plan – the Execution Manager just sends over the full
plan, and the Target Manager has to pick it apart. We considered this
a good idea – after all, the plan contains all information about
resources that will be used by an application. In retrospect, however,
it looks like a design break. The plan contains a lot of information
that the Target Manager is not interested in. So the Target Manager
has to dissect information that it should not need to see in the first
place.

Also, and maybe more importantly, the only way of releasing resources
is by sending the very same plan to the Target Manager all over again,
as the Target Manager does not keep track of allocations.

This does not allow for the early release of resources, in case the
application does not need all that were reserved, or in case part of
the application finishes early.

Therefore I propose to replace the current "commitResources" and
"releaseResources" operations with a per-application "resource
commitment" object that allows to commit and release resources in a
fine-grained manner, and that keeps track of the current commitment,
so that the remaining resources that are in use by an application
can be released by simply destroying the object.

By not sending the full Deployment Plan, that would also dramatically
cut communication between the Execution Manager and the Target Manager.

No Data Available

In section 6.8.9, the ResourceDeploymentDescription, part of a
DeploymentPlan, contains information about the resources that were
chosen to satisfy a requirement.

It has a "resourceValue" association to an Any value.

However, resources and requirements have not just one value, but a
set of properties; see 6.10.4 (RequirementSatisfier) and 6.10.7
(Requirement).

Therefore, the "resourceValue" must be replaced with a set of
"Properties" elements.

Proposed resolution:

In section 6.8.9.3 (ResourceDeploymentDescription associations),
replace the current association

resourceValue: Any [1]
The aspect of the resource actually allocated, if any, of
the appropriate type of the resource's SatisfierPropertyKind
attribute. For Quantity, it is the ordinal allocated. For
Allocation, it is the allocated capacity, for Selection, it
is the matched string. For others, it is the value of the
matched property.

with

property: Property [*]
The aspects of the resource actually allocated, if any. The
property values are of the appropriate types according to
their matched SatisfierProperty's SatisfierPropertyKind
attribute. For Quantity, it is the ordinal allocated. For
Allocation, it is the allocated capacity, for Selection, it
is the matched string. For others, it is the value of the
matched property

No Data Available

Sections 6.8.9, 6.8.10 and 6.8.11 describe the ResourceDeployment-
Description, InstanceResourceDeploymentDescription and Connection-
ResourceDeploymentDescription elements, which identify the resources
that were chosen to satisfy a requirement.

There are three minor editorial issues here:

(1)

In 6.8.11.2 (ConnectionResourceDeploymentDescription Attributes),
the targetName attribute always identifies an Interconnect or a Bridge,
but never a Node.

Proposed resolution:

Update the description for the targetName attribute; change the text
in parentheses from

(i.e., the name of a Node, Interconnect or Bridge)

to

(i.e., the name of an Interconnect or Bridge)

(2)

Also in 6.8.11.2 (ConnectionResourceDeploymentDescription Attributes),
the targetName provides a scope for the resource, not for a requirement.

Proposed resolution:

Update the description for the targetName attribute; change the
second half of the first sentence (after the comma) from

[...], to provide scope for the requirementName.

to

[...], to provide scope for the resourceName.

(3)

Finally, I'd like to clarify in section 6.8.10 (InstanceResource-
DeploymentDescription) that the resourceName is within the scope of
the node that this instance is deployed on.

Proposed resolution:

In section 6.8.10.5 (InstanceResourceDeploymentDescription semantics),
add the following text:

An InstanceResourceDeploymentDescription is always used in the context
of an InstanceDeploymentDescription, which identifies the node that a
component instance is deployed on. This node provides scope for the
resourceName.

No Data Available

In the latest document, with the resolution to issue 6039 applied,
figure 8-13 on page 123, contains a note attached to the
"commitResource"
operation between the DomainApplicationManager and the TargetManager,
indicating that:

This call could come from either the DomainApplicationManager
or the DomainApplication, as an implementation choice.

It was intended that implementations can also delegate resource
commitment
can also be delegated to nodes.

Proposed resolution:

Change the note identified above to read

Can be delegated to DomainApplication or NodeApplication.

No Data Available

The current specification does not support the separation of components during depoyment. It should be possible to specify a such a requirement as input for the deployment planning process. Use cases for this are for instance:

• to request the instantiation of components in different processes for single threaded component implementations
• to request the instantiation of components in different processes or on different hosts for fault tolerance reasons
• to request the instantiation of components on different hosts for performance reasons (with respect to CPU load)

This issue should be resolved together with issue #7666 (host collocation) and issue #7667 (process collocation).

No Data Available

In section 6.10.4.2 (RequirementSatisfier attribute), the
description for the "name" attribute reads, "An optional name
for the requirement satisfier."

This is in violation of our convention for "name" attributes
(see section 6.3), and in fact, other parts of the specification
make use of the fact that the name uniquely identifies a
RequirementSatisfier within its parent, e.g., the Resource
Deployment Description element; its resourceName identifies a
resource by the requirement satisfier's name.

Proposed resolution:

In section 6.10.4.2, change the description for the "name"
attribute from

name: String An optional name for the requirement satisfier.

to

name: String The requirement satisfier's name, which uniquely
identifies this requirement satisfier within its
container.

No Data Available

UML 2.0 allows for ports to have a set of required interfaces and a set
of provided interfaces.

The definition of port interfaces in the PIM should allow for this, even though
the PSM for CCM must constrain this.

Note that change must also be consistently applied to the external reference endpoints
(all other endpoints are for component ports with an associated port interface
definition in the ComponentPortDescription class).

No Data Available

Problem: The CCM DTD in the assembly descriptor has the
capability to direct deployment of components on the same
processor and the PIM and PSM for SWRadio Components infrastructure
supports the deployment concept of process collocation. The capability is
needed for deployment considerations to direct
which components are to be collocated within the same process. Flexibility
should be given to express how components are to be deployed.
One reason to do this is performance considerations. Another use case is
the components could be an assembly which represents an application service
that is deployed in one process space.
Recommended solution: Is to add an optional zero to many Process
Collocation
element to the ComponentAssemblyDescription.

No Data Available

The multiplicity of the stereotype-property Target::SharedResource::resourceUser is [0..*] in the overview picture, but [1..*] in the textual description. There seems to be no reason why there should be at least one user for a shared resource.

Monitor or Verify Lacking in Deployment Process: In order to make the deployment process more perfect,this specification adds deployment planning before real deployment process begins,the monitoring should be added after the deployment as well.Only implementing deployment does not means the end for an application,it will be wonderful if monitoring the effects of the performed deployment on the target system which may be chosed from several valid deployment plans.This will also be helpful to assess which choice of deployment plans is a better one and to support dynamically upgrade of existing component versions. Recommendation: Monitoring should be added to the deployment process(chapter1.3) and Monitorer should be conrrespondingly added to the Actor (chapter 7). Monitoring may involve many things here we can choose some tightly correlated to deployment.Monitoring the existing application may be easy.During the perfomation of current deployment plan,the deployer can use deploy tools to get CPU or memory's running state of each node in the domain and the network traffic may also be considered.Add some corresponding xml files or elements to describe them will be ok.But for monitoring of dynamically upgrating,we consider a example that a component will be replaced by a set of its versions encapsulated in a wrapper.During the monitoring process,the wrapper is responsible for "hiding" from the rest of the system the fact that a given component exists in multiple version and the role of the wrapper is to relay to all component versions each invocation that it receives from the rest of the system then to propagate the generated results to the rest of the system.We can authoritate different operations to different versions and only the result of the authoritative version will be propagated outside while results of other versions will be logged for comparison of their perfomance?correctness and reliability.After some given time,assesses a better version for use and removes others.There are other algorithms to find out.

In section 6.8.2.2 (ArtifactDeploymentDescription attributes),
the text for the "node" attribute explains,

node: String
The name of the node where the artifact is to be installed.
If blank, the node is implied by the InstanceDeploynment-
Description parent.

The empty string should not have a special meaning. Rather,
the attribute should be optional.

Proposed resolution:

Change the attribute to have 0..1 multiplicity, and change
the text to read as follows:

node: String [0..1]
The name of the node where the artifact is to be installed.
If missing, the node is implied by the InstanceDeployment-
Description parent.

For components created at runtime instead of configuration time, they cannot utilize advantages of Assembly-configurator infrstructure. Those components must using ad hoc Naming or ior to locate other components or assemblies.

Resolution:

When a component is created, assembly object call object configurator of type Components::Configurator's mothod to connect component to other components or assemblies:

void configure (in CCMObject comp)

Some extension must add to deployment descriptors, assembly object using these information to connect newly created component to other components or assemblies.

Replace the following text in formal/02-06-05 on page 7-14

<!ELEMENT connections
( connectinterface

with

<!ELEMENT connections
( connectinterface

Add the following text in formal/02-06-05 on page 7-14

<!ELEMENT connectcomponentinstantiation
(homeplacementref
, (connectinterface

The capability is lacking to indicate if the capacity model for a capacity
is managed by the node/device or not. The Deployment and Configuration
specification should not constraint System Architecture/Developers from
architecting/implementing the system but be flexible. The OMG SWRadio spec
allows for this flexibility. One Example use case of this is multiple
domains trying to reserve capacity from the same device.

Recommendation
At a locallyManaged boolean attribute to the RequirementSatisfier.
Add a new interface called CapacityManager or CapacityAllocator. This
allows a node/device to realize this type of interface. A node/device would
only have to support this interface if it had capacities that are locally
managed. Recommendation for the interface definition is based upon the
SWRadio DeviceComponent allocateCapacity and deallocateCapacity operations

Only the DomainApplicationManager and NodeApplicationManager have a startLaunch, on both classes this leads to a call to a DomainApplication/NodeApplication but this has no name in figure 9.1. We propose to seperate construction with the real functionality. Add startLaunch also to DomainApplication/NodeApplication which means adding it also to the application interface

On page 51 (section 7.6.1) there is inconsistency between TargetManager interface depicted in figure in subsection 7.6.1.1 and operations' description in subsection 7.6.1.2. In the figure there is 'commitResources' operation whereas in the description there is 'createResourceCommitment' operation. Which one is correct? Just to mention that on page 121 (section 9.10) in figure 9.1 - Executor in Action there is invocation of commitResources operation.

The multiplicity of stereotype-property Target::CommunicationPath::connectedNode is [1..*] in the overview picture, in textual description it is [*]. The multiplicity of [1..*] makes more sense, since the source for the derived property is
self.interconnect.connectedNode, where CommunicationPath::interconnect has multiplicity [1..*] and Interconnect::connectedNode has multiplicity [1..*], so there should be at least one connectedNode.

The name and description of stereotype-property Components::Port::UID seems odd. Other stereotypes have a UUID property, providing a unique identifier. The description "The primary type of the port." does not seem to fit.

The property Components::ComponentImplementation::capacity is of type Sequence(Capacity). The type Capacity is not existent, neither in the UML meta-model nor in the DEPL specification. It is most likely (also judging from the stand-alone PIM meta-model) that the type Capability was meant here. So the property should be exchanged by the property:
Components::ComponentImplementation::capability(Capability)

In the overview diagram the property Components::Component::ownedPort has the multiplicity [1..*] in textual description, however, the multiplicity is [*]. There seems to be no reason why a component should have at least one port.

Supports For Many Applications: The current specification is more and more consummate for deploying an application.In the case of actual distributed environments such as embedded system,several applications running at the same time may be more hopeful.Although deploying several applications involves more things to consider,firstly we can add an ApplicationController component.The application controller is the component that coordinates and communicates with each application. Recommendation: The application controller component can be considered an assembly-based component in which each assembly component represents an application.Add an optional ApplicationControllerComponent Elment to the assemblyComponent description which contains an attribute that identifies the component is the application controller component.The corresponding PSM XML should be updated for assemblyComponent description.In implementation,an ApplicationFactory should be added which is reponsible for creating applications.

The property Components::ExternalReference::location is of type URL. This type is neither defined in the UML meta-model, nor in the DEPL profile. The type should be String and maybe a constraint or regular expression should be defined to restrict the value to a URL.

The satisfierPropertykind should not be an enumeration type. This does not
allow for growth or expressing other capacity models. This issue was
discuss at the St. Louis meeting
Recommendation
Is to change from a enumeration type to string but keep the enumeration
list as well-define string values along with their meaning.