Issue 7354: XML Schema of Deployment spec doesn't honour constraints present in model Jira Issue DEPL4-1
Issue 7557: No type safety when external packages are referenced Jira Issue DEPL-78
Issue 7666: Host Collocation Deployment Directive Capability Lacking Jira Issue DEPL4-2
Issue 7667: Process Collocation Deployment Directive Capability Lacking Jira Issue DEPL4-20
Issue 7734: New Requirement Satisfier Type Jira Issue DEPL4-3
Issue 7735: AssemblyController Component Lacking Jira Issue DEPL4-4
Issue 7736: Component Factory Lacking Jira Issue DEPL4-5
Issue 7737: SatisfierPropertyKind is too Restrictive Jira Issue DEPL4-6
Issue 7738: Locally Managed Capacity Indicator Jira Issue DEPL4-7
Issue 7746: Deployment descriptors Jira Issue DEPL4-8
Issue 7877: UML 2.0 port issue Jira Issue DEPL4-21
Issue 7880: Target Manager Resource Commitment Granularity Jira Issue DEPL4-22
Issue 7940: Resource Deployment Description Clarification Jira Issue DEPL4-23
Issue 7941: Resource Deployment Description Insufficient Jira Issue DEPL4-24
Issue 7945: Requirement Satisfier "name" Attribute is not Optional Jira Issue DEPL4-25
Issue 7954: Separation of components during deployment (opposite of collocation). Jira Issue DEPL4-26
Issue 7971: Resource Commitment Sequence Diagram Clarification Jira Issue DEPL4-27
Issue 8286: ArtifactDeploymentDescription: "node" should be optional Jira Issue DEPL4-9
Issue 8944: Enumerated SatisfierProperties Jira Issue DEPL4-28
Issue 8979: Distinguish Node vs. Component Exec Parameters in Deployment Plan Jira Issue DEPL4-29
Issue 8983: Deployment Requirements in Deployment Plan Jira Issue DEPL4-30
Issue 8984: Information about Port Delegations Lost In Planning Jira Issue DEPL4-31
Issue 9177: Monitor or Verify Lacking in Deployment Process Jira Issue DEPL4-10
Issue 9178: Supports For Many Applications Jira Issue DEPL4-11
Issue 9239: IDL name clash due to enumeration values defined twice Jira Issue DEPL4-32
Issue 9884: Section: 7.6.1.1-7.6.1.2; 9.10 Jira Issue DEPL4-12
Issue 14088: Add startLaunch also to DomainApplication/NodeApplication Jira Issue DEPL4-13
Issue 17028: Multiplicity of Components::Component::ownedPort ambiguous overview diagram Jira Issue DEPL4-14
Issue 17029: Multiplicity of Components::Component::ownedPort ambiguous Jira Issue DEPL4-15
Issue 17030: Type of Components::ExternalReference::location does not exist Jira Issue DEPL4-16
Issue 17031: Stereotype-property Components::Port::UID ambiguous Jira Issue DEPL4-17
Issue 17032: Ambiguous mulitplicity of Target::CommunicationPath::connectedNode Jira Issue DEPL4-18
Issue 17033: Multiplicity of Target::SharedResource::resourceUser ambiguous Jira Issue DEPL4-19
Issue 7354: XML Schema of Deployment spec doesn't honour constraints present in model (deployment-rtf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Vanderbilt University (Mr. Krishnakumar Balasubramanian, kitty(at)dre.vanderbilt.edu)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
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="https://www.omg.org/Deployment" xmlns:xmi="https://www.omg.org/XMI" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="https://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" />
During the meetings and telephone conferences of the RTF it has been agreed that this issue is to be transferred to the MOF2XMI RTF. The source of this problem (issue #5950) has already been submitted to the MOF2XMI FTF. They acknowledged the problem but decided to close it without change since it would be too much work for them. Now a related issue is popping up again.
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.
Resolution: Make the type information for references to external packages mandatory by pointing to the respective ComponentInterfaceDescription
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.
See issue #7667 for disposition
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.
Resolution: Introduce an additional class called Locality to the ComponentAssemblyDescription that allows for specifying locality constraints on the deployment process. Add a new class called PlanLocality to the DeploymentPlan that allows for specifying special process locality constraints for the deployment engine executing the deployment plan.
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.
During the RTF meetings and telephone conferences the RTF agreed that a concrete use case is needed in order to specify an appropriate resolution for this issue. Since such use case is not yet available this issue is deferred to the next Deployment RTF
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.
During the RTF meetings and telephone conferences the RTF agreed that this issue needs to be further investigated. Thus, this issue is deferred to the next Deployment RTF.
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
During the RTF meetings and telephone conferences the RTF agreed that this issue needs to be further investigated. Thus, this issue is deferred to the next Deployment RTF
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.
During the RTF meetings and telephone conferences the RTF agreed that this issue needs to be further investigated. Thus, this issue is deferred to the next Deployment RTF.
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
During the RTF meetings and telephone conferences the RTF agreed that this issue needs to be further investigated. Thus, this issue is deferred to the next Deployment RTF.
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 | connectevent | connecthomes | extension )* > with <!ELEMENT connections ( connectinterface | connectevent | connecthomes | extension | connectcomponentinstantiation )* > Add the following text in formal/02-06-05 on page 7-14 <!ELEMENT connectcomponentinstantiation (homeplacementref , (connectinterface | connectevent )* ) > <!ATTLIST connectcomponentinstantiation id ID #REQUIRED >
This issue asks for additional features for supporting the configuration of dynamically created components during run-time. Since dynamic configuration goes beyond the scope of the current deployment specification, this issue is deferred to a future RFP for dynamic deployment.
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).
See issue #6602 for disposition Resolution: As part of the resolution to issue 7953, a constraint has been added that states each port stereotyped as SWRadioPort has a set of 1 required and 1 provided interface at most. Since SWRadioPort is the parent for all Port stereotypes defined in the PIM, by definition, this takes care of the problem addressed in issue 7877. Hence, issue 7877 should be closed with no change required to the specification, per the resolution for issue 7953. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change
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.
Resolution: As indicated by the issue, the "commitResources" and "releaseResources" are replaced by a per-application "resource commitment" object. This solution aims to minimize the communication between the Execution Manager and the Target Manager, both in terms of the amount of data and the required roundtrips. First, a data structure "ResourceAllocation" is introduced into the Target Management Model. It identifies a resource by name, and an amount that is being allocated. An application's total set of allocated resources can be expressed as a sequence of this structure.
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.
Resolution: Change the text as proposed.
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
Resolution: Change the text as proposed
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.
Resolution: Change the text as proposed
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).
See issue #7667 for disposition
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.
Resolution: Change the text as proposed above
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.
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.Resolution: Because of the added complexity, and the low mileage, I propose to remove enumerated properties from the spec.
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.
Resolution: Split the "execution parameters" in the Execution Data Model into two sets of parameters to be in sync with the Component Data Model.
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.
Remove the copies of deployment requirements, in both ArtifactDeploymentDescription and MonolithicDeploymentDescription.
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.
Resolution: Add "resourcePort" and "componentPort" attributes to the InstanceResourceDeploymentDescription element, to carry the information from the original implementation requirement.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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 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 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 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.