* Re: 9X Distributed Annex? CORBA?
1994-09-30 13:03 9X Distributed Annex? CORBA? WOODRUFF
@ 1994-10-01 11:50 ` Tucker Taft
1994-10-01 14:17 ` David Weller
1994-10-01 15:53 ` Anthony Gargaro
1994-10-01 18:07 ` R. William Beckwith
2 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tucker Taft @ 1994-10-01 11:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <WOODRUFF.94Sep30130332@ec2226.addvax.llnl.gov>,
<WOODRUFF@ec2226.addvax.llnl.gov> wrote:
>I'm seeking information and relevant advice about planning and building
>a distributed application using Ada94. The application is an integrated
>control system that will deploy about 200 workstation-class computers in
>a local area net to control the next-generation high-power fusion laser.
>
>I have studied the RM's Distributed Annex, and I recognize that the
>language standard will allow me to build the system I need. However I
>am not aware of any implementation of the Annex. I have not seen any
>claim by the GNAT team that they are planning an Annex implementation.
>Validation of commercial compilers is likely to be higher priority to
>compiler businesses than building Annexes. Therefore my first question
>is "where and when am I likely to obtain an implementation of
>Distributed Annex?"
An implementation of the Distributed Annex is underway for GNAT.
I don't know what the schedule is. If you want to know the plans
of other commercial vendors, you should contact them directly.
I'm sure for some of them, the Distributed Annex will be a relatively
high priority (particularly if potential customers keep asking them
about it ;-).
>The other standard that appears relevant to my intention is CORBA. I'm
>pretty uninformed about implementations of CORBA, so I'd welcome advice
>about what I should do to prepare for eventual use of these products.
>How will Ada interface to CORBA tools? Will CORBA implementations let me
>mix my application parts with components in other languages, or even
>with COTS software?
Yes, that is one of the intents of CORBA.
>What is the relationship of CORBA to the distributed annex? If the two
>are complementary strategies, then what will I need to buy and what do I
>need to learn so I can plan my application? On the other hand if they
>are two competing paradigms, how can I choose between them, and how bad
>will be my punishment if I choose the wrong one?
The two are quite similar, and can to some extent be implemented in
terms of one another, both from a user perspective and an implementor
perspective. That is, given an existing CORBA implementation,
an implementor, user, or third party, could use that as the basis
for the "Partition Communication System" (PCS) component of the
Distributed Annex. Similarly, given an implementation of the
Distributed Annex, one could use that as the basis for a CORBA-compatible
IDL-to-Ada9X translator.
These days, the expert on the combination of CORBA and Ada 9X seems
to be Bill Beckwith of OIS (Objective Interface Systems, Reston, VA).
His e-mail address is Bill.Beckwith@ois.com.
>John
>(woodruff1@llnl.gov)
>Lawrence Livermore National Lab
-Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com
Intermetrics, Inc.
Cambridge, MA 02138
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: 9X Distributed Annex? CORBA?
1994-10-01 11:50 ` Tucker Taft
@ 1994-10-01 14:17 ` David Weller
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: David Weller @ 1994-10-01 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <CwzswJ.6tA@inmet.camb.inmet.com>,
Tucker Taft <stt@dsd.camb.inmet.com> wrote:
>In article <WOODRUFF.94Sep30130332@ec2226.addvax.llnl.gov>,
> <WOODRUFF@ec2226.addvax.llnl.gov> wrote:
>>I'm seeking information and relevant advice about planning and building
>>a distributed application using Ada94. The application is an integrated
>>control system that will deploy about 200 workstation-class computers in
>>a local area net to control the next-generation high-power fusion laser.
>>
>>I have studied the RM's Distributed Annex, and I recognize that the
>>language standard will allow me to build the system I need. However I
>>am not aware of any implementation of the Annex. I have not seen any
>>claim by the GNAT team that they are planning an Annex implementation.
>
>An implementation of the Distributed Annex is underway for GNAT.
>I don't know what the schedule is. If you want to know the plans
>of other commercial vendors, you should contact them directly.
>I'm sure for some of them, the Distributed Annex will be a relatively
>high priority (particularly if potential customers keep asking them
>about it ;-).
I've seen a demo of the Distribution Annex implementation. To my
knowledge, Dick Volz of Texas A&M is working out the details. He
gave a simple demonstration back in June. I don't have his e-mail
address though. Perhaps if you nagged Robert Dewar or Ed Schonberg,
they'd cough the address up and you could convince Mr. Volz you want
to be an early tester.
--
Proud (and vocal) member of Team Ada! (and Team OS/2) ||This is not your
Ada -- Very Cool. Doesn't Suck. || father's Ada
For all sorts of interesting Ada tidbits, run the command: ||________________
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
ObNitPick: Spelling Ada as ADA is like spelling C++ as CPLUSPLUS. :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: 9X Distributed Annex? CORBA?
1994-09-30 13:03 9X Distributed Annex? CORBA? WOODRUFF
1994-10-01 11:50 ` Tucker Taft
@ 1994-10-01 15:53 ` Anthony Gargaro
1994-10-01 18:07 ` R. William Beckwith
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Gargaro @ 1994-10-01 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <WOODRUFF.94Sep30130332@ec2226.addvax.llnl.gov>, WOODRUFF@ec2226.addvax.llnl.gov writes:
|>
|> I have studied the RM's Distributed Annex, and I recognize that the
|> language standard will allow me to build the system I need. However I
|> am not aware of any implementation of the Annex. I have not seen any
|> claim by the GNAT team that they are planning an Annex implementation.
|> Validation of commercial compilers is likely to be higher priority to
|> compiler businesses than building Annexes. Therefore my first question
|> is "where and when am I likely to obtain an implementation of
|> Distributed Annex?"
A non-government academic/industrial initiative is ongoing to build an open
systems prototype of the Distributed Systems Annex. Initially this will be
implemented for the GNAT (with the cooperation of the NYU team for the core
language support). The intent is to make this prototype available coincident
with the currently planned final release of GNAT (ca 3Q'95). (The attentive
listener to Dr. Reifer's briefing at the WAdaS this year would have heard this
initiative mentioned.)
|> The other standard that appears relevant to my intention is CORBA. I'm
|> pretty uninformed about implementations of CORBA, so I'd welcome advice
|> about what I should do to prepare for eventual use of these products.
|> How will Ada interface to CORBA tools? Will CORBA implementations let me
|> mix my application parts with components in other languages, or even
|> with COTS software?
Both CORBA and the Distributed Systems Annex support what is becoming
popularly called "distributed objects" (or "network objects") by the
distributed programming literati. One significant difference is that CORBA is
language independent and requires that the CORBA Interface Definition Language
(IDL) be mapped to the implementation language of each object. Consequently,
the CORBA concept is to provide, through distributed objects, the seamless
integration of multilingual heterogeneous distributed applications. (Note the
current specifications do not detail the necessary interoperability to achieve
this concept.)
|> What is the relationship of CORBA to the distributed annex? If the two
|> are complementary strategies, then what will I need to buy and what do I
|> need to learn so I can plan my application? On the other hand if they
|> are two competing paradigms, how can I choose between them, and how bad
|> will be my punishment if I choose the wrong one?
The two paradigms are very similar from an applications programmer's
perspective. They may be viewed as complementary, providing a continuum of
distributed programming capabilities. For an Ada 9X distributed application,
where predictability and safety is more important than integrating a
collection of cooperating heterogeneous components, the annex may be
preferable. If this application has to be interconnected within the context of
a larger CORBA-compliant application, then one partition of the Ada 9X
application can be implemented as the application gateway. This gateway would
use both the annex and the IDL mapping to Ada 9X; the other partitions would
remain unchanged.
Tucker has noted several ways in which the respective implementations may
potentially coexist. For example, the PCS may be implemented using the ORB
core facilities; this would allow IDL requests for an object's service to be
routed to an Ada 9X implementation of a conforming distributed object.
Note that there is an effort to fast track the CORBA/IDL as an ISO
standard. Regardless of whether or not this is appropriate (given the
linguistic lineage of the IDL), an IDL mapping to Ada 9X becomes increasingly
critical to Ada 9X.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: 9X Distributed Annex? CORBA?
1994-09-30 13:03 9X Distributed Annex? CORBA? WOODRUFF
1994-10-01 11:50 ` Tucker Taft
1994-10-01 15:53 ` Anthony Gargaro
@ 1994-10-01 18:07 ` R. William Beckwith
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: R. William Beckwith @ 1994-10-01 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
WOODRUFF@ec2226.addvax.llnl.gov wrote:
: I'm seeking information and relevant advice about planning and building
: a distributed application using Ada94. The application is an integrated
: control system that will deploy about 200 workstation-class computers in
: a local area net to control the next-generation high-power fusion laser.
I like your choice of languages :-)
: I have studied the RM's Distributed Annex, and I recognize that the
: language standard will allow me to build the system I need. However I
: am not aware of any implementation of the Annex. I have not seen any
: claim by the GNAT team that they are planning an Annex implementation.
: Validation of commercial compilers is likely to be higher priority to
: compiler businesses than building Annexes. Therefore my first question
: is "where and when am I likely to obtain an implementation of
: Distributed Annex?"
Nobody has a dist annex yet. Dr. Volz at TAMU has been
looking for funding to build a research dist annex. I
think you are right that the compiler companies have other
higher priorities.
: The other standard that appears relevant to my intention is CORBA. I'm
: pretty uninformed about implementations of CORBA, so I'd welcome advice
: about what I should do to prepare for eventual use of these products.
: How will Ada interface to CORBA tools?
The earliest CORBA efforts with Ada were based on trying to bind Ada
to C code generated by an IDL to C translator. IDL is the CORBA
Interface Definition Language. IDL allows the definition of an interface
that is distributable. There are approved IDL mappings for C. C++ and
Smalltalk mappings are about to be approved.
We have been working with MITRE to produce an IDL to Ada 9X mapping.
This IDL to Ada 9X mapping committee has endeavored to produce a cleaner,
more elegant mapping than the lastest C++ mapping. This is not hard
given the multiple variants of C++ and the existing C++ CORBA products
the C++ mapping must retain compatibly with.
The resulting Ada 9X mapping will allow vendors to produce compatible
Ada 9X CORBA products. When the next revision of the mapping is
complete, we will distribute it around the net. If the feedback is
consistently positive then we will be submitting this mapping to OMG.
: Will CORBA implementations let me mix my application parts with
: components in other languages, or even with COTS software?
Yes. Transparent, interlingual interoperability is a primary benefit
of CORBA. You even can let developers in other languages benefit
from your Ada 9X software.
I like to think that IDL will eventually replace the /usr/include
C header files as language independent interface definitions. Maybe
the POSIX committees will take note.
: What is the relationship of CORBA to the distributed annex?
We have put a lot of effort into determining how the dist annex
works in relation to CORBA (thanks to Anthony Gargaro and Tucker Taft).
The dist annex is a very flexible, innovative piece of work.
In its v5.0 form, the dist annex could not meet the requirements
of CORBA. However, Tuck has submitted a proposal to modify the dist
annex that I believe will allow a implementation of a dist annex
that uses an ORB for communication.
Distributing object oriented software causes certain difficult choices.
You need to present an abstract interface to the clients of a
service. The implementations of this interface are separately
defined. The big decision is whether have the implementations (say
Vehicle_Impl and Car_Impl) inherit from the abstract interfaces
(Vehicle and Car).
If you have Vehicle_Impl inherit directly from Vehicle, then since
Car_Impl inherits from the abstract Car, Car_Impl doesn't inherit
the data and operation implementations in Vehicle_Impl. This is
usually called the BOA approach. Most of the current C++ products
take this approach. The result is that you must put a Car_Impl
object in Vehicle_Impl (to get the data). Then you must write
(or generate) pass-through operations in Car_Impl for each of
the operations implemented in Vehicle_Impl. I didn't like this
approach at all.
So we came up with another approach with two parallel inheritance
trees. Car inherits from Vehicle. Car_Impl inherits from Vehicle_Impl.
The code generator takes care of the details connecting the two.
The _Impl's are much cleaner. We found out later that this
approach is the similar to IONA's newer `tie' approach. The
latest C++ mapping accommodates both the older BOA and the newer tie
approach. The Ada mapping allows only the tie approach.
O.K., back to the dist annex. The dist annex doesn't
solve this problem or interfere with a solution. In fact Tucker
sent me an elegant version of the tie approach using the modified
dist annex.
The problem is that the use of the dist annex for CORBA only
saves the code generator the generation of one piece of code per
interface. We felt that requiring the dist annex as a prerequisite
for a CORBA product was too limiting. In addition, the use of
the dist annex thwarts the implementation of automatic memory
management.
If the Ada 9X reviewers don't object to Tucker's change and believe
that it is possible and reasonable to develop a compiler/dist annex
tool with the change, then we may produce a second mapping especially
for the dist annex at some point in the future.
I suspect that some projects will still want to use the dist annex
because the CORBA model doesn't fit their need.
: If the two are complementary strategies, then what will I need to buy
: and what do I need to learn so I can plan my application?
You'll need to buy a CORBA Ada product consisting of an IDL to Ada
translator and ORB binding product. A CORBA Ada product will allow
you to both use IDL to access services provided by other products
and to write IDL, generate the Ada framework, and write the service
implementations in Ada 9X.
OIS will demonstrate an IDL to Ada 9X translator at TRI-Ada in a month.
We should also be able to announce our ORB marketing plans by then also.
: On the other hand if they are two competing paradigms, how can I
: choose between them, and how bad will be my punishment if I choose
: the wrong one?
Well, I like to think that you would find both paths rewarding.
The CORBA path leads to language independent interfaces and
interoperability with future standards. The dist annex path
leads to a flexible Ada based distributed interface capability.
A distributed real-time system running in satellite or airplane
will probably chose the dist annex for greater control of the
response times. A distributed MIS or C4I application will probably
want to use CORBA to gain and offer service access to other software.
: John
: (woodruff1@llnl.gov)
: Lawrence Livermore National Lab
Thanks for the interest.
... Bill
--
e-mail: Bill.Beckwith@ois.com | Team Ada
Objective Interface Systems, Inc. | dist, full O-O
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 250 | multithreading
Reston, VA 22091-5448 U.S.A. | built in
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread