Kelut logo

Login
 
   
Forums >> JVMS
Questions for Chuck
Posted: 03/23/2003 09:26
By: Ben Litchfield
 
This question refers to page D-27 of Appendix-D.
Does the structrefid attribute of the structsequence element
refer to a struct in the same properties file or can it be
any in the system?  Second, does the list of simplerefs
refer to to the simples that were defined in the struct that
is being referenced?

This question refers to page D-48 of Appendix-D.
We have not talked a lot about external ports.  Do we need
to support this?  If so, from a UI point of view it appears
a designer could right-click on a port and say "Make
External" or something along those lines.  What are your
thoughts?

-Ben
Answers to question set 1
Posted: 03/28/2003 10:19
By: clinn
 
Ben,
Following is your text with responses in << >>:

This question refers to page D-27 of Appendix-D.
Does the structrefid attribute of the structsequence
element
refer to a struct in the same properties file or can it
be
any in the system? <>

 Second, does the list of simplerefs
refer to to the simples that were defined in the struct
that
is being referenced?

<>

This question refers to page D-48 of Appendix-D.
We have not talked a lot about external ports.  Do we
need
to support this?  If so, from a UI point of view it
appears
a designer could right-click on a port and say
"Make
External" or something along those lines.  What are
your
thoughts?

<>

Second try...
Posted: 03/28/2003 10:22
By: clinn
 
I guess double angle brackets may not have been a good idea.
Here goes again...

Q: This question refers to page D-27 of Appendix-D.
Does the structrefid attribute of the structsequence
element
refer to a struct in the same properties file or can it
be
any in the system? 
A: Although I expect that officially these could be
anywhere, I don't find it particularly limiting to limit to
the same file.  One example of common may be, for example,
if I wanted each component to report the software revisions
of it's the C++ source files it is made up of (sort of
unrealistic...).  In this case, each component would have a
property ComponentSwRevs, each containing a sequence of
SwRevs.  Here you could imaging that SwRevs would probably
be common across all Harris components.  This does not keep
you from defining the same structure multiple times (albeit
with different refids) in each components files, nor, in
this case does it keep you from defining ComponentSwRevs in
the "common" place, which probably makes more sense.  So the
takehome answer is that I don't see any great limitation to
only referencing structures in the same file if this is
either easier to implement or easier on the user.

Q: Second, does the list of simplerefs
refer to to the simples that were defined in the struct
that
is being referenced?

A: I assume you are talking about the simpleref element of
the structvalue element. As the for simplerefs, I assume
that they refer to the individual simple references that
made up the original structure, i.e. will correspond to the
refids of the simple+ on page D-26.  BTW - Maybe I am
missing something, but I can't see why the cardinality on
the structvalue is +, not ? - I am asking our CF guys on
this.

Q: This question refers to page D-48 of Appendix-D.
We have not talked a lot about external ports.  Do we
need
to support this?  If so, from a UI point of view it
appears
a designer could right-click on a port and say
"Make
External" or something along those lines.  What are
your
thoughts?

A:  Yes, prior to support this is med-high, and I think your
approach sounds fine.

Cardinality on structvalues should be ?, not +
Posted: 03/28/2003 15:48
By: clinn
 
Eric,
It's been a while  This one comes from the Sr. project
students, and I am embarrassed to not know the answer:
 
On D-27, the structsequence lists structvalues, with a
cardinality of + (not ?).  Either this is a typo, or I am
misinterpreting. What I assume is that a stuctsequence is a
sequence of the same structure (reference by structrefid),
similar to the way a simplesequence is a sequence of simples
with multiple values.  In the case of simplesequences the
values field has a cardinality of ? - so by analogy, should
structvalue also have the same cardinality?
 
Thanks,
Chuck

(REPLY)
Hi Chuck,
 
I agree that it doesn't make sense to have different
cardinalities for the value elements of simplesequence and
structsequence. I guess you've uncovered the one and only
inconsistency in the SCA :-)
 
Regards,
Eric
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Linn, Charles 
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 12:17 PM
To: Held, Eric
Subject: CF question