From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,eb0daafec4ae827a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: High-integrity networking
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:57:50 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1191963470.320434.27750@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
References: <1191845623.383675.190820@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
   <_VwOi.141398$Fc.15278@attbi_s21>
   <1191935853.244559.87440@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
   <x%OOi.125486$Xa3.61992@attbi_s22>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.3.245.232
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1191963470 16893 127.0.0.1 (9 Oct 2007 20:57:50
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:57:50 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <x%OOi.125486$Xa3.61992@attbi_s22>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.7) Gecko/20070914 Firefox/2.0.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.3.245.232;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:2391
Date: 2007-10-09T13:57:50-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 9 Pa , 19:37, "Jeffrey R. Carter"
<spam.jrcarter....@acm.nospam.org> wrote:

> I'd probably design such a system as a
> distributed/Annex-E Ravenscar system, then try to ensure that the
> non-Ada parts are equivalent to what an Ada implementation would be, and
> that all communications are equivalent to what would take place in a
> fully Annex-E implementation.
>
> > I have already found CSP (Communicating Sequential Processes), which
> > is one possible approach, although what I have seen up to now leaves
> > some "minor" details in the air, like the startup of the whole system.
> > Ravenscar can afford this, because it's the language implementation
> > that has to more or less transparently take care of all these issues,
> > but heterogenous systems might need some more explicit handling.

Which is, basically, what I imagined at the beginning - but I have an
impression that some of the details might need to be more pronounced
in the explicitly distributed system. I will repeat the startup issue
with its inherent timing/ordering problems.

I can also imagine supporting this process (especially the last part
of your sentence above) with some model-driven generation of skeletons
for different nodes.

MDD with Ada/Ravenscar as a DSL for modeling communication patterns?
Sounds like a nice subject for a paper. :-)

--
Maciej Sobczak * www.msobczak.com * www.inspirel.com