Issue 11703: Interceptor specific registration                                                                                                                                                                       (qos4ccm-rtf)
Source: THALES (Mr. Olivier Hachet, olivier.hachet2@fr.thalesgroup.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Interceptor specific registration: 
The section 8.7 mentions in a note that « Possible specific registration
operation (e.g., register only for a specific facet) shall be investigated
in FTF. In constraint environments, the need can be to register interceptors
at operation level.
In section 8.3.4 there is no means for interceptor registration on specific
operation of facet. We propose to introduce the ability to specify a port
name and an operation name in order to access easily to these data at
implementation level. No registration interface modifications are needed
here.
As said in section 8.3.4.1 name attribute can be also used to order
interceptors stored into a list. We suggest adding a priority attribute that
should supply such need.

Resolution: We propose to introduce the ability to specify a port name and an operation name in order to access easily to these data at implementation level. No registration interface modifications are needed here.
As said in section 8.3.4.1 name attribute can be also used to order interceptors stored into a list. An addition of a priority attribute that should supply such need. 
Improvement of existing ContainerInterceptor interface in order to allow interceptor registration at facet and operation level.

Revised Text: ·	The note below shall be removed in section 8.7:

8.7 Registering Container Interceptors

Note - Current definition of registration interfaces allow only for unspecific registration. Possible specific registration operations
(e.g., register only for a specific facet) shall be investigated in FTF.


·	The name definition should be updated in section 8.3.4.1. The name attribute is no more used to order list of interceptor, because it is done by the priority attribute.

8.3.4.1 name
Each container interceptor may have a name that may be used for administrative purposes; in particular, to order the list of registered interceptors. It is possibly to use anonymous interceptors. In this case the name is an empty string. There can be more than one anonymous interceptor.

·	In section 8.3.4, modification of existing ContainerInterceptor interface in order to allow interceptor registration at facet and operation level. Add of a priority attribute to order the list of interceptors.

8.3.4 Container Interceptor Interface

module Components {
module ContainerPortableInterceptor {
struct CustomSlotItem
{
string identifier;
any content;
};
typedef sequence<CustomSlotItem> CustomSlotItemSeq;
	
struct IntegrationPoint
{
string port;
string operation;
};

local interface ContainerInterceptor
{
readonly attribute string name;
attribute unsigned short priority;
attribute IntegrationPoint registration_info;
void destroy ();
void set_slot_id(in PortableInterceptor::SlotId slot_id);
};
};
};


8.3.4.2 priority
Each container interceptor may have a priority that may be used to order the list of registered interceptors. Priority value may help implementor to control execution order of interceptors and some existing dependencies between interceptors. The determination and management of priority values is free.

8.3.4.3 registration_info
This attribute is a structure containing a port and an operation string that informs about the specific intercepted call. If null strings are set, interceptor is registered for all interception points.

Actions taken:
November 30, 2007: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====

m: olivier.hachet2@fr.thalesgroup.com
To: qos4ccm-rtf@omg.org
Cc: issues@omg.org
Subject: QoS4CCM
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:28:48 +0100
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id lAU8U1cB017674


Here is a new issue for QoS4CCM specification


Interceptor specific registration: 
The section 8.7 mentions in a note that « Possible specific registration
operation (e.g., register only for a specific facet) shall be investigated
in FTF. In constraint environments, the need can be to register interceptors
at operation level.
In section 8.3.4 there is no means for interceptor registration on specific
operation of facet. We propose to introduce the ability to specify a port
name and an operation name in order to access easily to these data at
implementation level. No registration interface modifications are needed
here.
As said in section 8.3.4.1 name attribute can be also used to order
interceptors stored into a list. We suggest adding a priority attribute that
should supply such need.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Olivier HACHET      
THALES Communications DLJ/FR/OPS-F/SAT/SC2
 1-5, ave. Carnot / Bat.E - 91883 MASSY Cedex
                    Tel : +33 1 69 75 32 39
                    Fax : +33 1 69 75 31 79