CVS difference for ais/ai-00273.txt

Differences between 1.1 and version 1.2
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00273.txt

--- ais/ai-00273.txt	2001/09/08 01:42:49	1.1
+++ ais/ai-00273.txt	2001/11/15 02:34:08	1.2
@@ -375,3 +375,59 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: Nick Roberts
+Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2001  4:55 PM
+
+(Forwarded by Tucker Taft)
+
+If not fresh in your mind, this AI is about the fact that the PCS defined in
+the RM95 is really only suitable for a distributed system composed of a
+static set of Ada 95 partitions, and is (almost) unusable for more dynamic
+or interoperative types of distributed system.
+
+The suggestion is to make the whole PCS mechanism optional in the next
+revision, largely on the grounds that the reviewers do not have time to
+develop the PCS idea to the extent it would have to be to fulfil the wider,
+more flexible, requirements.
+
+I believe that there would be great value in a new and (significantly)
+improved PCS (standard, language-defined) definition, and that it could and
+should be developed. I would be willing to devote the time necessary to
+develop my own detailed suggestion for this, if it would be of any interest
+to you.
+
+The next revision could specify both the current PCS solution (System.RPC)
+and the new one (perhaps System.Advanced_RPC), and permit an implementation
+(conforming to the annex) to use either one, or to provide a choice of
+either (or neither), via a configuration pragma:
+
+pragma Partition_Communication_Subsystem(Normal|Advanced|Native);
+
+The 'Native' option would provide for an implementation that bypasses either
+of the standard PCSs.
+
+I also feel that the standard should define a naming service (like CORBA's
+COSNaming). I have already worked to some extent on a naming service for
+AdaOS; this could be readily adapted.
+
+Needless to say, this is an issue that could have great significance for
+AdaOS.
+
+I don't (readily) have the e-mail addresses of the other reviewers of this
+AI (Laurent Pautet, Bob Duff, Pascal Leroy, Robert Dewar, and Randy
+Brukardt), and I'm not too sure of the correct protocol or procedure in this
+situation, so I hope you don't mind me e-mailing you this way. I'd be
+grateful if you could steer me onto the right path (if there is one).
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar
+Date: Thursday, November 8, 2001  9:42 PM
+
+I think it is pointless to do this work on a PCS at the ARG level. There is
+no point in mandating things at this stage, when only one vendor has shown
+any interest in doing Annex E at all. I think it would make more sense for
+Nick to do an experimental implementation with GNAT.
+
+****************************************************************
+

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent