${taskforce.name} Avatar
  1. OMG Task Force

Deployment RTF — Closed Issues

  • Key: DEPL4
  • Issues Count: 13
Open Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Descriptions

Information about Port Delegations Lost In Planning

  • Key: DEPL4-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8984
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: DEPL 1.0 — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DEPL 4.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

IDL name clash due to enumeration values defined twice

  • Key: DEPL4-32
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9239
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS ( Andreas Hoffmann)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: DEPL 1.0 — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DEPL 4.0
  • Disposition Summary:

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

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Enumerated SatisfierProperties

  • Key: DEPL4-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8944
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    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

    { ix86, ppc, sparc }

    ;

    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.

  • Reported: DEPL 1.0 — Mon, 1 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DEPL 4.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Deployment Requirements in Deployment Plan

  • Key: DEPL4-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8983
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: DEPL 1.0 — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DEPL 4.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Distinguish Node vs. Component Exec Parameters in Deployment Plan

  • Key: DEPL4-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8979
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: DEPL 1.0 — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DEPL 4.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Separation of components during deployment (opposite of collocation).

  • Key: DEPL4-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7954
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS ( Andreas Hoffmann)
  • Summary:

    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).

  • Reported: DEPL 1.0 — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DEPL 4.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Resource Commitment Sequence Diagram Clarification

  • Key: DEPL4-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7971
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: DEPL 1.0 — Wed, 8 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DEPL 4.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Resource Deployment Description Insufficient

  • Key: DEPL4-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7941
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    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

  • Reported: DEPL 1.0 — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DEPL 4.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Resource Deployment Description Clarification

  • Key: DEPL4-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7940
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: DEPL 1.0 — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DEPL 4.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Requirement Satisfier "name" Attribute is not Optional

  • Key: DEPL4-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7945
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: DEPL 1.0 — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DEPL 4.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Target Manager Resource Commitment Granularity

  • Key: DEPL4-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7880
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: DEPL 1.0 — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DEPL 4.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2.0 port issue

  • Key: DEPL4-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7877
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Mercury Systems ( Jim Kulp)
  • Summary:

    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).

  • Reported: DEPL 1.0 — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DEPL 4.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Process Collocation Deployment Directive Capability Lacking

  • Key: DEPL4-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7667
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: DEPL 1.0 — Fri, 3 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DEPL 4.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT