The ComponentPackageReference element (6.4.8) allows to reference
an external package (to be resolved during planning by searching
repositories), for example to instantiate a subcomponent instance
from, in an assembly.

However, there is no type safety here; an assembly design tool has
no way of validating that the ports (which are referenced by
connections within the assembly) actually exist in the component
interface of the referenced component.

Actually, there is little point in ComponentPackageReference having
an optional "requiredType"; there should always be a mandatory type
that the referenced package must support.

To an assembly design tool, just having the "requiredType" repository
id is insufficient for validation, the full
ComponentInterfaceDescription
is necessary.

Proposed resolution:

In section 6.4.8.2, ComponentPackageReference Attributes, delete the
"requiredType" attribute.

Add a "requiredType" composition association to ComponentInterface-
Description, with multiplicity 1..1.

In section 6.4.8.3, ComponentPackageReference Constraints, delete the
constraints, and replace with "No constraints." (Rationale: when type
conformance is mandatory, the existing constraing will always be met.)

In section 6.4.8.4, ComponentPackageReference Semantics, replace the
existing text

The planner will search one or more repositories for package
configurations that satisfy all requirements.

with

The planner will search one or more repositories for package
configurations that support the requiredType, and that match the
requiredUUID and requiredName attributes, if present.

No Data Available

Commit and releaseResources based upon a deployment plan. This should be a
separate interface. For systems or domains implementations that need this
behavior a component could exist that provides this behavior. Not all
systems need to formally create a deployment plan (XML) to do deployment.

No Data Available

6.4.14 MonolithicImplementationDescription

This description should have additional well-defined optional attributes
such as entry point name, stack size, and process priority. Keep these
elements separate from execParameters. ExecParameters should be parameters
that are passed to the main process or entry point and used by the entry
point or main process implementation. These should be defined at the PIM
level.

No Data Available

2.3.3 ComponentPackageDescription
2.3.4 ComponentImplementationDescription
There should be a constraint stated for the configproperties? What should
they relate to?

No Data Available

3) page 91: In the sequence diagram, the time when is called the
commitRessources operation on the TargetManager instance is not clear for
me. It seems that the operation begins before the end of the
DomainApplication's activity period (call to "startLaunch").

No Data Available

Section 9.5.8, "Transformation Exceptions and Extensions" in the
"PSM for CCM to PSM for CCM for XML Transformation" chapter, contains
the text:

If the link attribute of a ComponentPackageDescription proxy that
is part of a SubcomponentInstantiationDescription element does not
contain a fragment identifier, then the referenced file can be
either a Component Package Descriptor or a package (i.e. a ZIP
file with the ".cpk" extension containing the package).

This was added for better modularity, to allow a package to "import"
another package, maybe from some external location. On second thought,
considering the implementation impact, this does not seem like such
a good idea, because it overloads an XMI proxy object with a second
meaning: either do what XMI says, or import a package.

It is also self-contradictory with the preceding sentence, which gives
clear semantics to linking to an XML document without a fragment
identifier.

I suggest to replace this with an explicit importing mechanism: add a
new class to the Component Data Model called "ComponentPackageImport",
and use it in the SubcomponentInstantiationDescription. This resolution
clarifies how to reuse packages.

Proposed resolution:

Add a new class "ComponentPackageImport" to the Component Data Model.

6.4.x ComponentPackageImport

6.4.x.1 Description

Imports a package via an URL.

6.4.x.2 Attributes

location: String [1..*]
Alternative locations of the package that is to be imported.

6.4.x.3 Associations

None.

6.4.x.4 Semantics

A ComponentPackageImport can be used instead of a
PackageConfiguration
to import a package, rather than providing the package "inline."

In 6.4.7.1 (SubcomponentInstantiationDescription description), replace
the
second paragraph,

The SubcomponentInstantiationDescription links to a package that
provides
implementations for the sub-component that is to be instantiatiated.
There
is either a link to a ComponentPackageDescription in case a package
recursively contains packages for its sub-components, or there is a
link
to a ComponentPackageReference that contains the requiredType of a
component
interface. Users of the Component Data Model will have to contact a
Repository (possibly via a search path) in order to find a package
that
implements this interface.

with

The SubcomponentInstantiationDescription specifies a package to
instantiate
a subcomponent from, and configures this subcomponent instance. The
package
can be provided in one of three ways:

• The package can be provided inline, as part of the same package,
  using a
  PackageConfiguration.
• A package can be imported, using a ComponentPackageImport. The
  imported
  package may be part of the enveloping package, or it may be
  referenced
  from an external location. This allows reusing packages.
• A package can be referenced indirectly, using a
  ComponentPackageReference.
  Users of the Component Data Model will have to contact a
  Repository
  (possibly via a search path) in order to find an appropriate
  package.

In 6.4.7.3 (SubcomponentInstantiationDescription associations), add

importedPackage: ComponentPackageImport [0..1]
Imports a package by reference.

In 6.4.7.4 (SubcomponentInstantiationDescription constraints), replace

There can be either a package or a reference, but not both.

with

A package to supply an implementation for this subcomponent is
either
included, imported, or referenced:

context SubcomponentInstantiationDescription inv:
Set

->size() =
1

In 6.5.1.5 (RepositoryManager semantics), add

The installPackage and createPackage operations recursively resolve
all
imported packages: in all SubcomponentInstantiationDescription
elements,
ComponentPackageImport elements are replaced with
PackageConfiguration
elements, containing the data that was loaded from the imported
package.
PackageConfiguration elements returned from findConfigurationByName
or
findConfigurationByUUID do not contain ComponentPackageImport
elements.

In 9.5.8 (Transformation Exceptions and Extensions), delete the second
sentence of the last paragraph, which reads

If the link attribute of a ComponentPackageDescription proxy that
is part of a SubcomponentInstantiationDescription element does not
contain a fragment identifier, then the referenced file can be
either a Component Package Descriptor or a package (i.e. a ZIP
file with the ".cpk" extension containing the package).

No Data Available

In 6.4.7, (SubcomponentInstantiationDescription), an assembly can point
to another package to provide an instance of a subcomponent, using the
"package" reference to ComponentPackageDescription.

The resolution to issue 6047 changed the main "work product", the
package,
to contain a PackageConfiguration as the toplevel item, rather than a
ComponentPackageDescription.

For consistency, I suggest that SubcomponentInstantiationDescription
reference PackageConfiguration, too.

Proposed resolution:

In 6.4.7.3 (associations for SubcomponentInstantiationDescription),
change

package: ComponentPackageDescription [0..1]
Describes a package that provides an implementation for this
subcomponent instance.

to

package: PackageConfiguration [0..1]
The package that provides an implementation for this
subcomponent instance.

No Data Available

see the following definition in the IDL generated from the Target Data
Model using UML Profile for CORBA, and have some issues with semantics when
interpreting the following generated IDL mapping from the model:

struct SharedResource

;

typedef sequence < SharedResource > SharedResources;

struct Resource

;

typedef sequence < Resource > Resources;

struct Node

;

struct Domain

;

The idea of the above IDL is to represent the following semantics:

A Domain is composed of Nodes (among other things). A Domain can also
contain a list of the resources that are shared among the different nodes
in the domain. There is also an association between the Nodes of the domain
and the SharedResources in a domain. Basically, the nodes of the domain
contain a list of the resources that they share with other nodes, and the
each shared resource keep track of the nodes that share it.

Please refer to Fig 6-4 Target Data Model Overview, in the document:

http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/2004-03-10

Ideally one should be able to represent this in IDL like this:

struct Node;

typedef Sequence<Node> Nodes;

struct SharedResource

;

except that this is invalid IDL. The alternative mapping that is generated
doesn't seem to make sense. What should I fill in as values for the
::CORBA::ULongSeq in struct SharedResource? Why did it get mapped to an
CORBA::ULongSeq? Is it intended that these unsigned longs will refer to the
gasp pointers of the actual nodes in my parsed DOM tree with Domain as
root? If so, it will not work with 64-bit machines. How is one supposed to
refer a IDL struct member i.e, node inside a Domain using unsigned long?
The only identifier that is unique among all nodes in a Domain is it's
name. But unsigned long just doesn't make sense to me.

The above illegal IDL definition which directly includes Nodes after just
forward declaring node would work if Node was mapped to a valuetype. But I
don't know if that is a feasible solution.

Any clarifications on this would be really helpful.

No Data Available

The resolution for issue #6026 added several definitions to chapter 5 ("Terms and Definitions"). The definitions 5.10, 5.13, and 5.23 refer directly or implicitely to the term "connection" (between components). However, this term is not defined in chapter 5 yet.

Proposed resolution:
Don't change current definitions but add an appropriate definition for connection.

No Data Available

Make the getAllResources and getAvailableResources a separate interface.
For systems or domains implementations that need this behavior a component
could exist that provides this behavior. Not all systems need to formally
create a domain. Some systems provide this information based upon their
components. The issue, if a domain is distributed that contains distributed
components that manage this information how does the domain map to these
elements?

No Data Available

The submission only gives one choice for managing node resources, which
is always done by the domain (target manager). There is no capability of
allowing a node/device to manage its resources and its states, and to
indicate which node resources can be managed at the domain and which ones
at the node or device level. Recommendation is add the capability in the
description elements to indicate if the resources are managed by the
node/device or by the domain, and operations to the node/device to manage
this capability

No Data Available

Suggestion is to break ComponentExternalPortEndpoint from
AssemblyConnectionDescription as a separate definition for the assembly
external port definitions

No Data Available

SubcomponentPortEndpoint, ComponentExternalPortEndpoint, and
ExternalReferneceEndpoint need to indicate the type of interface.
Rational: UML 2.0 defines ports that can be associated with many required
and provider interfaces

No Data Available

The "name" attribute of the Property class must be a URN, so to be consistent
we should rename the attribute global_name, and insist that it is a URN

No Data Available

The OLD CCM DTD and SCA had the concept of connection ID for a required
port. This was useful when a required port allowed multiple connections to
it with the same interface, so it could distinguish the connection being to
it. Add the flexibility in the Port definition of optional stating
connection ids for a required port and allow the component assembly
definition for a port connection to optional state a connection id to be
used. For a required port, instead of stating connection IDs, it could
optionally state the maximum number of connections per interface type for a
required port. When not stated it is assumed to be one.

No Data Available

For ExternalReferneceEndpoint add optional port name attribute to
indicate the port that is used to connect to or to retrieve an interface
from the ExternalReferenceEndpoint. Rationale for change is to allow for
components to be connected to ExternalReferenceEndpoint that are
components. An example is a SWRadio use case for an I/O device resident in
the SWRadio, where the I/O Device has required and provider ports.

No Data Available

For ExternalReferneceEndpoint add provider boolean attribute to
indicate the role of the ExternalReferenceEndpoint. Rationale for change
is to allow for components to be connected to ExternalReferenceEndpoint or
an ExternalReferenceEndpoint to be connected to an assembly component. An
example is a SWRadio use case for an I/O device resident in the SWRadio,
where the I/O Device has required and provider ports.

No Data Available

The RepositoryManager has two operations to install packages in the
Repository: installPackage() and createPackage(). But while the latter
has a "replace" parameter, to decide whether an existing package (with
the same installationName) shall be replaced or not, the former doesn't.
I don't see why this difference should exist.

Proposed resolution:

In section 6.5.1.2 (RepositoryManager operations), add a third "replace"
parameter of boolean type to the installPackage operation. Thus, change

installPackage (installationName: String, location: String)
Installs a package in the repository, under the given installation
name. Raises the NameExists exception if a configuration by this
name already exists. Raises the PackageError exception if an
internal error is detected in the package.

to

installPackage (installationName: String, location: String, replace:
Boolean)
Installs a package in the repository, under the given installation
name. If the replace parameter is true, an existing
PackageConfiguration
with the same name is replaced. If the replace parameter is false,
and if
a package with the same name exists in the repository, the
NameExists
exception is raised. Raises the PackageError exception if an
internal
error is detected in the package.

No Data Available

ComponentExternalPortEndpoint definition is not unique enough. A
component can have the same port name. This definition needs to be
qualified by a component as done for SubcomponentPortEndpoint.

No Data Available