Issue 6039: page 91: In the sequence diagram (deployment-ftf) Source: THALES (Mr. Olivier Hachet, olivier.hachet2@fr.thalesgroup.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: 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"). Resolution: Revised Text: In figure 7-6 with title "Executor in action": 1. Extend the execution/activity-period bar under the DomainApplicationManager for the startLaunch operation to include duration of the commitResources call. 2. Add a note indicating that this call could come from either the DomainApplicationManager or the DomainApplication, as an implementation choice. Here is the resulting diagram after applying the changes above that replaces figure 7-6: In the text description of the startLaunch operation (6.9.4.2) change: Raises the ResourceNotAvailable exception if the commitResources parameter to the prepare operation of the ExecutionManager was true, if late resource allocation is used, and one of the requested resources is not available. To If the commitResources parameter to the prepare operation of the ExecutionManager was true when this ApplicationManager was created, then this operation must: - Raise the ResourceNoAvailable execption if any of the requested resources are not available - Directly or indirectly perform the resource commitment with the TargetManager (with the commitResources operation), before returning. Actions taken: August 1, 2003: received issue May 9, 2005: closed issue Discussion: Resolution: The diagram in question is Figure 7-6 ("Executor in action") on document page number 101, pdf page number 111, in the convenience document in august. There are two flaws in this diagram: 1) It should be clear that before DomainApplicationManager returns from startLaunch, it should perform the commitResources operation. 2) It should not be normative just where the resource commitments happen between the DomainApplicationManager and DomainManager. It should be clear that implementations can do it either way. Both these classes are part of the execution manager and thus an execution manager could be implemented either way. End of Annotations:===== From: olivier.hachet2@fr.thalesgroup.com To: deployment-ftf@omg.org Subject: Some issues Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:44:44 +0200 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id h6VFbFkM003494 Hi, I have found some issues listed below concerning the document ptc/2003-07-08. For some of them, I am not sure but I prefer submit them even if it's a lack of understanding : 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 Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 10:03:19 -0400 From: James Kulp Organization: Mercury Computer Systems, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en,pdf To: Andreas Hoffmann Cc: deployment-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: RTF homework assignments - issue number 6039 X-Virus-Scanned: by ClamAV at mailsnare.net The issue: 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"). The diagram in question is Figure 7-6 on document page number 101, pdf page number 111, in the convenience document in august. There are two flaws in this diagram: 1) It should be clear that before DomainApplicationManager returns from startLaunch, it should perform the commitResources operation. 2) It should not be normative just where the resource commitments happen between the DomainApplicationManager and DomainManager. It should be clear that implementations can do it either way. Both these classes are part of the execution manager and thus an execution manager could be implemented either way. So, the proposed solution is: In the diagram: 1. Extend the execution/activity-period bar under the DomainApplicationManager for the startLaunch operation to include duration of the commitResources call. 2. Add a note indicating that this call could come from either the DomainApplicationManager or the DomainApplication, as an implementation choice. In the text description of the startLaunch operation (6.9.4.2) change: Raises the ResourceNotAvailable exception if the commitResources parameter to the prepare operation of the ExecutionManager was true, if late resource allocation is used, and one of the requested resources is not available. To: If the commitResources parameter to the prepare operation of the ExecutionManager was true when this ApplicationManager was created, then this operation must: - Raise the ResourceNoAvailab le execption if any of the requested resources are not available - Perform the resource commitment with the TargetManager (with the commitResources operation), before returning. Jim Andreas Hoffmann wrote: Hi RTF members, I would like to remind you on the homeworks assigned to some of you. It is important to get the results quite soon in order to make progress at the RTF telecons. Here are the homeworks assigned so far: #5969: Manfred #6039: Jim #6040: Francis (now John) #6043: Francis (now John) #6025: Manfred #6266: Manfred #6435: Andreas #6597: Manfred #6602: Francis (now John) #7279: Jim #7282: Manfred #7283: Jim Thanks in advance. Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 10:24:57 -0400 From: James Kulp Organization: Mercury Computer Systems, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en,pdf To: Andreas Hoffmann Cc: deployment-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: RTF homework assignments - issue number 6039 - rev 2 X-Virus-Scanned: by ClamAV at mailsnare.net The issue: page 91: In the sequence diagram, the time when is called the commitResources 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"). The diagram in question is Figure 7-6 on document page number 101, pdf page number 111, in the convenience document in august. There are two flaws in this diagram: 1) It should be clear that before DomainApplicationManager returns from startLaunch, it should perform the commitResources operation. 2) It should not be normative just where the resource commitments happen between the DomainApplicationManager and DomainManager. It should be clear that implementations can do it either way. Both these classes are part of the execution manager and thus an execution manager could be implemented either way. So, the proposed solution is: In the diagram: 1. Extend the execution/activity-period bar under the DomainApplicationManager for the startLaunch operation to include duration of the commitResources call. 2. Add a note indicating that this call could come from either the DomainApplicationManager or the DomainApplication, as an implementation choice. In the text description of the startLaunch operation (6.9.4.2) change: Raises the ResourceNotAvailable exception if the commitResources parameter to the prepare operation of the ExecutionManager was true, if late resource allocation is used, and one of the requested resources is not available. To: If the commitResources parameter to the prepare operation of the ExecutionManager was true when this ApplicationManager was created, then this operation must: - Raise the ResourceNoAvailab le execption if any of the requested resources are not available - Directly or indirectly perform the resource commitment with the TargetManager (with the commitResources operation), before returning. Jim Andreas Hoffmann wrote: Hi RTF members, I would like to remind you on the homeworks assigned to some of you. It is important to get the results quite soon in order to make progress at the RTF telecons. Here are the homeworks assigned so far: #5969: Manfred #6039: Jim #6040: Francis (now John) #6043: Francis (now John) #6025: Manfred #6266: Manfred #6435: Andreas #6597: Manfred #6602: Francis (now John) #7279: Jim #7282: Manfred #7283: Jim Thanks in advance. Subject: Re: Deployment RTF ballot (2nd poll), closing 7th December 2004 20:00 GMT Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 09:49:44 -0500 Thread-Topic: Deployment RTF ballot (2nd poll), closing 7th December 2004 20:00 GMT Thread-Index: AcTRiwSJm06cILYtRDSUnQltu+2SBgKOJuZQAFwKo+A= From: "Pilhofer, Frank" To: "Victor Giddings" Cc: "Deployment RTF" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id iB8EpfNN018486 > > OMG Issue No: 6039: No. As Jerry noted, the document changes do not reflect > the proposed resolution. The note in the diagram says "Can be delegated to > DomainApplication or NodeApplication", whereas the resolution states "[i]t > should not be normative just where the resource commitments happen between > the DomainApplicationManager and DomainManager." > The proposed resolution that we voted on is normative. The text "it should not be normative ...", phrased in the negative, is not as crisp as it should be. I thus edited the note to a positive statement. The added mention of NodeApplication reflects our intention when we were discussing the issue, but you are right in that it can not be derived from the text of the propsed resolution. An alternative to the note, the sequence diagram could show multiple "commitResource" invocations, with an "either or" note attached to all of them. I suggest to discuss the issue in an upcoming telephone conference. We can then decide whether a change is necessary, and whether it can be handled editorially, or whether a new issue should be posted for this. DomainApplication's activity period (call to "startLaunch").