Issue 9738: Disign Principles (qos4ccm-ftf) Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS (Mr. Tom Ritter, tom.ritter@fokus.fraunhofer.de) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Disign Principles The concepts of Basic vs. Extended Container Interceptors need to be introduced before they are references in the various principals listed here. After reading all of this, I would infer that the Basic COPIs are intended to be called from an ORB-level Portable Interceptor that is part of the container implementation, and that the Extended COPIs are called directly by the container. Is this correct? Could it be stated more explicitly? Resolution: To introduce the concept of Basic and Extended Concept beforehand a text section will be added at the end of section 8.3.1. In general the implementation of the Container and the used mechanism are completely transparent, which means a container vendor could implement the specification in various different ways. However, to implement the basic COPIs by wrapping the PI and to implement the extended COPIs by calling it directly from the container is one possible solution and also a most likely one. However, to state this directly in the spec would possibly constrain the implementation of the specification too much. For this reason the described solution will be mentioned as one possible implementation variant by adding text at the end of section 8.3.1. Revised Text: The following text has been added to the end of the first paragraph of section 8.3.1: There are two levels of Container Portable Interceptors. The basic level corresponds to the capabilities of the CORBA Portable Interceptors (PI) and the extended ones provide an extended functionality to better control the call chain within the Container. · The following text has been added at the end of section 8.3.1: A detailed description on how to implement the basic and the extended COPIs will not be given in this specification. This will leave container vendors the freedom to decide on how to implement this specification. However, a possible implementation variant is that basic COPIs will be realised by wrapping the CORBA Portable Interceptor as part of the container implementation, which means that the basic interception points will be called by a wrapped Portable Interceptor. The extended COPIs can be realised by extending the container implementation and make the calls to the extended interceptions points directly from the container. Actions taken: May 18, 2006: received issue January 15, 2008: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 18 May 2006 04:17:41 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Tom Ritter Company: Fraunhofer FOKUS mailFrom: ritter@fokus.fraunhofer.de Notification: Yes Specification: QoS4CCM Section: 8.3.2 FormalNumber: ptc/06-04-15 Version: final adopted RevisionDate: April/2006 Page: 12 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.3) Gecko/20060426 Firefox/1.5.0.3 Description Disign Principles The concepts of Basic vs. Extended Container Interceptors need to be introduced before they are references in the various principals listed here. After reading all of this, I would infer that the Basic COPIs are intended to be called from an ORB-level Portable Interceptor that is part of the container implementation, and that the Extended COPIs are called directly by the container. Is this correct? Could it be stated more explicitly? Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:16:25 +0200 From: Tom Ritter User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) To: qos4ccm-ftf@omg.org Subject: Proposed solution to issue 9738 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Aug 2007 15:16:23.0508 (UTC) FILETIME=[135B4140:01C7DE86] X-Fraunhofer-Email-Policy: accepted Hi FTF members, I would propose the following as solution to issue 9738. Please respond if you have any comment regarding this issue. Cheers, Tom To introduce the difference between basic and extended interceptors the following text will be added to the end of the first paragraph of section 8.3.1: There are two levels of Container Portable Interceptors. The basic level corresponds to the capabilities of the CORBA Portable Interceptors (PI) and the extended ones provide an extended functionality to better control the call chain within the Container. In general the implementation of the Container and the used mechanism are completely transparent, which means a container vendor could implement the specification in various different ways. However, to implement the basic COPIs by wrapping the PI and to implement the extended COPIs by calling it directly from the container is one possible solution and also the most likely solution. However, to state this directly in the spec would possible constrain the implementation of the specification to much. For this reason the described solution will be mentioned as one possible implementation variant by adding the following text at the end of section 8.3.1: A detailed description on how to implement the basic and the extended COPIs will not be given in this specification. This will leave container vendors the freedom to decide on how to implement this specification. However, a possible implementation variant is that basic COPIs will be realised by wrapping the CORBA Portable Interceptor as part of the container implementation, which means that the basic interception points will be called by a wrapped Portable Interceptor. The extended COPI will be realised by extending the container implementation and make the calls to the extended interceptions points directly from the container. -- Tom Ritter Head of Working Area Model-Driven Engineering Fraunhofer FOKUS Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31 10589 Berlin, Germany +49 30 3463 - 7278 (fon), - 8000 (fax) mailto:ritter@fokus.fraunhofer.de Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:55:24 +0200 From: Ansgar Radermacher User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070606) To: Tom Ritter Cc: qos4ccm-ftf@omg.org Subject: Basic and Extended COPIs [Re: Proposed solution to issue 9738] Hi all, I think, we should reconsider the names "basic" and "extended" COPIs, since the latter are not really an extension of the former. As Tom has already pointed out in his answer to issue 9736 (posted on August 14th), a container vendor can decide to either provide basic, only extended interceptors, or both (btw: this is *not* well indicated in the current spec). If we keep the existing names, a reader might assume that he cannot have extended COPIs without having basic ones. (The extension of extended COPIs is that they overcome CORBA-PI limits like modification of parameters). Therefore, I propose to use the names: COPI (=COntainer corba Portable Interceptors) for the basic COPIs and COI (=COntainer Interceptor) for extended ones. or we always keep COPI and talk about ORB-COPIs and OI-COPIs (ORB-Independant), though I slightly prefer the former, since I associate PI with CORBA. I am aware that this requires a lot of changes in the document, but these can be done automatically. Please discuss. Best regards Ansgar Tom Ritter wrote: Hi FTF members, I would propose the following as solution to issue 9738. Please respond if you have any comment regarding this issue. Cheers, Tom To introduce the difference between basic and extended interceptors the following text will be added to the end of the first paragraph of section 8.3.1: There are two levels of Container Portable Interceptors. The basic level corresponds to the capabilities of the CORBA Portable Interceptors (PI) and the extended ones provide an extended functionality to better control the call chain within the Container. In general the implementation of the Container and the used mechanism are completely transparent, which means a container vendor could implement the specification in various different ways. However, to implement the basic COPIs by wrapping the PI and to implement the extended COPIs by calling it directly from the container is one possible solution and also the most likely solution. However, to state this directly in the spec would possible constrain the implementation of the specification to much. For this reason the described solution will be mentioned as one possible implementation variant by adding the following text at the end of section 8.3.1: A detailed description on how to implement the basic and the extended COPIs will not be given in this specification. This will leave container vendors the freedom to decide on how to implement this specification. However, a possible implementation variant is that basic COPIs will be realised by wrapping the CORBA Portable Interceptor as part of the container implementation, which means that the basic interception points will be called by a wrapped Portable Interceptor. The extended COPI will be realised by extending the container implementation and make the calls to the extended interceptions points directly from the container. -- Ansgar Radermacher CEA/DRT/LIST http://www-list.cea.fr/index.htm http://www2.cs.unibw.de/alumni/Ansgar/ phone: +33 16908 3812 Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:49:26 +0200 From: Tom Ritter User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) To: Ansgar Radermacher Cc: qos4ccm-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Basic and Extended COPIs [Re: Proposed solution to issue 9738] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 18:49:27.0091 (UTC) FILETIME=[53297830:01C7EA6D] X-Fraunhofer-Email-Policy: accepted Hi Ansgar, In general I thinks these names aren't that important. I believe, basic and extended are striking ones and for that reason a good choice. However, if you feel these aren't appropriate we can think about changing them. Considerung the approaching deadline I would suggest to defer it to RTF, since this would be a minor change. What do you think? Cheers, Tom Ansgar Radermacher wrote: Hi all, I think, we should reconsider the names "basic" and "extended" COPIs, since the latter are not really an extension of the former. As Tom has already pointed out in his answer to issue 9736 (posted on August 14th), a container vendor can decide to either provide basic, only extended interceptors, or both (btw: this is *not* well indicated in the current spec). If we keep the existing names, a reader might assume that he cannot have extended COPIs without having basic ones. (The extension of extended COPIs is that they overcome CORBA-PI limits like modification of parameters). Therefore, I propose to use the names: COPI (=COntainer corba Portable Interceptors) for the basic COPIs and COI (=COntainer Interceptor) for extended ones. or we always keep COPI and talk about ORB-COPIs and OI-COPIs (ORB-Independant), though I slightly prefer the former, since I associate PI with CORBA. I am aware that this requires a lot of changes in the document, but these can be done automatically. Please discuss. Best regards Ansgar Tom Ritter wrote: Hi FTF members, I would propose the following as solution to issue 9738. Please respond if you have any comment regarding this issue. Cheers, Tom To introduce the difference between basic and extended interceptors the following text will be added to the end of the first paragraph of section 8.3.1: There are two levels of Container Portable Interceptors. The basic level corresponds to the capabilities of the CORBA Portable Interceptors (PI) and the extended ones provide an extended functionality to better control the call chain within the Container. In general the implementation of the Container and the used mechanism are completely transparent, which means a container vendor could implement the specification in various different ways. However, to implement the basic COPIs by wrapping the PI and to implement the extended COPIs by calling it directly from the container is one possible solution and also the most likely solution. However, to state this directly in the spec would possible constrain the implementation of the specification to much. For this reason the described solution will be mentioned as one possible implementation variant by adding the following text at the end of section 8.3.1: A detailed description on how to implement the basic and the extended COPIs will not be given in this specification. This will leave container vendors the freedom to decide on how to implement this specification. However, a possible implementation variant is that basic COPIs will be realised by wrapping the CORBA Portable Interceptor as part of the container implementation, which means that the basic interception points will be called by a wrapped Portable Interceptor. The extended COPI will be realised by extending the container implementation and make the calls to the extended interceptions points directly from the container. -- Tom Ritter Head of Working Area Model-Driven Engineering Fraunhofer FOKUS Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31 10589 Berlin, Germany +49 30 3463 - 7278 (fon), - 8000 (fax) mailto:tom.ritter@fokus.fraunhofer.de Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:45:45 +0200 From: Ansgar Radermacher User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070606) To: Tom Ritter Cc: qos4ccm-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Basic and Extended COPIs [Re: Proposed solution to issue 9738] Hi Tom, I believe, basic and extended are striking names and for that reason *not* a very good choice But, I can understand if you don't want to make that change now. I therefore propose to slightly modify the paragraph which introduces the two variants: "There are two levels of Container Portable interceptors. The basic level corresponds to the capabilities of the CORBA Portable Interceptors (PI). The extended one is independent of CORBA PIs and can thus for instance provide the functionality to modify arguments. It is extended in the sense that it provides additional features compared to a basic COPI, but it is not an extension of the basic one. In particular, it is possible to implement only extended COPIs." Tom Ritter wrote: Hi Ansgar, In general I thinks these names aren't that important. I believe, basic and extended are striking ones and for that reason a good choice. However, if you feel these aren't appropriate we can think about changing them. Considerung the approaching deadline I would suggest to defer it to RTF, since this would be a minor change. What do you think? Cheers, Tom Ansgar Radermacher wrote: Hi all, I think, we should reconsider the names "basic" and "extended" COPIs, since the latter are not really an extension of the former. As Tom has already pointed out in his answer to issue 9736 (posted on August 14th), a container vendor can decide to either provide basic, only extended interceptors, or both (btw: this is *not* well indicated in the current spec). If we keep the existing names, a reader might assume that he cannot have extended COPIs without having basic ones. (The extension of extended COPIs is that they overcome CORBA-PI limits like modification of parameters). Therefore, I propose to use the names: COPI (=COntainer corba Portable Interceptors) for the basic COPIs and COI (=COntainer Interceptor) for extended ones. or we always keep COPI and talk about ORB-COPIs and OI-COPIs (ORB-Independant), though I slightly prefer the former, since I associate PI with CORBA. I am aware that this requires a lot of changes in the document, but these can be done automatically. Please discuss. Best regards Ansgar Tom Ritter wrote: Hi FTF members, I would propose the following as solution to issue 9738. Please respond if you have any comment regarding this issue. Cheers, Tom To introduce the difference between basic and extended interceptors the following text will be added to the end of the first paragraph of section 8.3.1: There are two levels of Container Portable Interceptors. The basic level corresponds to the capabilities of the CORBA Portable Interceptors (PI) and the extended ones provide an extended functionality to better control the call chain within the Container. In general the implementation of the Container and the used mechanism are completely transparent, which means a container vendor could implement the specification in various different ways. However, to implement the basic COPIs by wrapping the PI and to implement the extended COPIs by calling it directly from the container is one possible solution and also the most likely solution. However, to state this directly in the spec would possible constrain the implementation of the specification to much. For this reason the described solution will be mentioned as one possible implementation variant by adding the following text at the end of section 8.3.1: A detailed description on how to implement the basic and the extended COPIs will not be given in this specification. This will leave container vendors the freedom to decide on how to implement this specification. However, a possible implementation variant is that basic COPIs will be realised by wrapping the CORBA Portable Interceptor as part of the container implementation, which means that the basic interception points will be called by a wrapped Portable Interceptor. The extended COPI will be realised by extending the container implementation and make the calls to the extended interceptions points directly from the container. -- Ansgar Radermacher CEA/DRT/LIST http://www-list.cea.fr/index.htm http://www2.cs.unibw.de/alumni/Ansgar/ phone: +33 16908 3812 mailto: ansgar.radermacher@cea.fr From: olivier.hachet2@fr.thalesgroup.com To: ansgar.radermacher@cea.fr, tom.ritter@fokus.fraunhofer.de Cc: qos4ccm-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Basic and Extended COPIs [Re: Proposed solution to issue 9738 ] Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:26:42 +0200 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id l7UAMmrU012264 Hello, I agree with the proposition of Ansgar. It clarify the relationship between basic and extended. Olivier -----Message d'origine----- De : Ansgar Radermacher [mailto:ansgar.radermacher@cea.fr] Envoyé : jeudi 30 août 2007 10:46 À : Tom Ritter Cc : qos4ccm-ftf@omg.org Objet : Re: Basic and Extended COPIs [Re: Proposed solution to issue 9738] Hi Tom, I believe, basic and extended are striking names and for that reason *not* a very good choice But, I can understand if you don't want to make that change now. I therefore propose to slightly modify the paragraph which introduces the two variants: "There are two levels of Container Portable interceptors. The basic level corresponds to the capabilities of the CORBA Portable Interceptors (PI). The extended one is independent of CORBA PIs and can thus for instance provide the functionality to modify arguments. It is extended in the sense that it provides additional features compared to a basic COPI, but it is not an extension of the basic one. In particular, it is possible to implement only extended COPIs." Tom Ritter wrote: > Hi Ansgar, > > In general I thinks these names aren't that important. I believe, > basic and extended are striking ones and for that reason a good > choice. However, if you feel these aren't appropriate we can think > about changing them. Considerung the approaching deadline I would > suggest to defer it to RTF, since this would be a minor change. What > do you think? > > Cheers, > Tom > > Ansgar Radermacher wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I think, we should reconsider the names "basic" and "extended" COPIs, >> since the latter are not really an extension of the former. As Tom >> has already pointed out in his answer to issue 9736 (posted on August >> 14th), a container vendor can decide to either provide basic, only >> extended interceptors, or both (btw: this is *not* well indicated in >> the current spec). If we keep the existing names, a reader might >> assume that he cannot have extended COPIs without having basic ones. >> (The extension of extended COPIs is that they overcome CORBA-PI >> limits like modification of parameters). >> >> Therefore, I propose to use the names: >> COPI (=COntainer corba Portable Interceptors) for the basic COPIs and >> COI (=COntainer Interceptor) for extended ones. >> >> or we always keep COPI and talk about ORB-COPIs and OI-COPIs >> (ORB-Independant), though I slightly prefer the former, since I >> associate PI with CORBA. >> >> I am aware that this requires a lot of changes in the document, but >> these can be done automatically. Please discuss. >> >> Best regards >> >> Ansgar >> >> Tom Ritter wrote: >>> Hi FTF members, >>> >>> I would propose the following as solution to issue 9738. Please >>> respond if you have any comment regarding this issue. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Tom >>> >>> >>> To introduce the difference between basic and extended interceptors >>> the following text will be added to the end of the first paragraph >>> of section 8.3.1: >>> >>> There are two levels of Container Portable Interceptors. The basic >>> level corresponds to the capabilities of the CORBA Portable >>> Interceptors (PI) and the extended ones provide an extended >>> functionality to better control the call chain within the Container. >>> >>> In general the implementation of the Container and the used >>> mechanism are completely transparent, which means a container vendor >>> could implement the specification in various different ways. >>> However, to implement the basic COPIs by wrapping the PI and to >>> implement the extended COPIs by calling it directly from the >>> container is one possible solution and also the most likely >>> solution. However, to state this directly in the spec would possible >>> constrain the implementation of the specification to much. For this >>> reason the described solution will be mentioned as one possible >>> implementation variant by adding the following text at the end of >>> section 8.3.1: >>> >>> A detailed description on how to implement the basic and the >>> extended COPIs will not be given in this specification. This will >>> leave container vendors the freedom to decide on how to implement >>> this specification. However, a possible implementation variant is >>> that basic COPIs will be realised by wrapping the CORBA Portable >>> Interceptor as part of the container implementation, which means >>> that the basic interception points will be called by a wrapped >>> Portable Interceptor. The extended COPI will be realised by >>> extending the container implementation and make the calls to the >>> extended interceptions points directly from the container. >>> >> >> > -- Ansgar Radermacher CEA/DRT/LIST http://www-list.cea.fr/index.htm http://www2.cs.unibw.de/alumni/Ansgar/ phone: +33 16908 3812 mailto: ansgar.radermacher@cea.fr