Issue 14610: Missing constraint between scheduler and scheduling parameters (marte-rtf) Source: THALES (Mr. Sebastien Demathieu, sebastien.demathieu(at)thalesgroup.com) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: In the GRM domain model (Figure 10.11) and GRM profile (Figure 10.16), there should be a constraint that enforce consistency between scheduling parameters and the related scheduler (e.g. a task brokered by an HPF scheduler cannot have anything else than a priority - integer - as a scheduling parameter). Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: November 2, 2009: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 02 Nov 2009 11:46:40 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Séstien Demathieu Company: Thales mailFrom: sebastien.demathieu@thalesgroup.com Notification: Yes Specification: MARTE Section: 10.2.4 FormalNumber: MARTE Beta 3 Version: MARTE Beta 3 RevisionDate: 2009 Page: 104 Title: Missing constraint between scheduler and scheduling parameters Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor test: 3qw8 B1: Report Issue Description: From: "Peter Kortmann" To: "'Juergen Boldt'" , , Cc: Subject: RE: issue 14610 -- MARTE RTF issue Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:54:09 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 thread-index: Acpb325P+l+kRcu+SW+aDBrsjzqmPwCb/9ow The issue of constraints consistency is a valid one. This specific case between the scheduler and its parameters is one of a generalized need to insert consistency between performance parameters. Instead of adding rules specifically on a one by one basis, we recommend providing a capability for asserting consistency conditions. For example a .target. parameter, the parameters that need to be consistent with it, and the rules relating the parameters should be part of an augmented consistency assertions package. If this approach is undertaken, since it is inherently extensible and facilitates adding new consistency conditions, we need not worry about the understanding of all the possible consistency relationships right now. In addition, since VSL is designed to be extensible, we expect the addition of new properties and therefore also expect new consistency conditions. Consistency between parameters is just as important as the parameter values. Please consider a Consistency Assertions Package as our recommended solution. Thanks. Peter From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 9:06 AM To: issues@omg.org; marte-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 14610 -- MARTE RTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 02 Nov 2009 11:46:40 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Séstien Demathieu Company: Thales mailFrom: sebastien.demathieu@thalesgroup.com Notification: Yes Specification: MARTE Section: 10.2.4 FormalNumber: MARTE Beta 3 Version: MARTE Beta 3 RevisionDate: 2009 Page: 104 Title: Missing constraint between scheduler and scheduling parameters Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor test: 3qw8 B1: Report Issue Description: In the GRM domain model (Figure 10.11) and GRM profile (Figure 10.16), there should be a constraint that enforce consistency between scheduling parameters and the related scheduler (e.g. a task brokered by an HPF scheduler cannot have anything else than a priority - integer - as a scheduling parameter). Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org In the GRM domain model (Figure 10.11) and GRM profile (Figure 10.16), there should be a constraint that enforce consistency between scheduling parameters and the related scheduler (e.g. a task brokered by an HPF scheduler cannot have anything else than a priority - integer - as a scheduling parameter).