CVS difference for ais/ai-00357.txt

Differences between 1.7 and version 1.8
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00357.txt

--- ais/ai-00357.txt	2004/09/09 02:24:20	1.7
+++ ais/ai-00357.txt	2004/09/10 00:43:33	1.8
@@ -2587,3 +2587,73 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: Robert Dewar
+Sent: Thursday, September  9, 2004  2:42 PM
+
+My inclination would be to make this an optional feature. I don't
+see a good argument for requiring vendors to implement this package.
+If their customers need it, then they will ask for it. I prefer
+development of the language in this kind of respect to be
+customer/user driven.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Thursday, September  9, 2004  2:59 PM
+
+My understanding was that this was an optional part of the Real-Time Annex
+(which is of course optional itself). I certainly agree that this shouldn't
+be a required part of the Real-Time Annex; the wording ought to reflect
+that.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar
+Sent: Thursday, September  9, 2004  3:17 PM
+
+OK, I quickly scanned and perhaps I missed the optional statement,
+so if it is there, I am not so concerned.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Thursday, September  9, 2004  5:29 PM
+
+I quickly scanned it too, and didn't find the statement, either, so I think
+it is really missing. It should be added, IMHO.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Pascal Leroy
+Sent: Thursday, September  9, 2004  3:01 PM
+
+Well, this feature is part of the real-time annex, so it's optional.  I
+agree that this is a part of the annex that vendors won't probably
+implement unless there is proven customer demand.
+
+Surely you are not proposing a new notion of optionality, distinct from
+the SNAs?
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar
+Sent: Thursday, September  9, 2004  3:21 PM
+
+Absolutely I am. I object to this unit if it is a required
+part of the real time annex. Furthermore this is not a new
+notion at all:
+
+Implementation Permissions
+
+10   An implementation need not support Asynchronous_Task_Control if it is
+infeasible to support it in the target environment.
+
+I would be happy to have a parallel statement for this new proposed
+package. Of course in practice it is the vendor who decides whether
+or not support is feasible, and that's just fine.
+
+What this means for instance is that the corresponding ACATS tests
+are option, even if you intend to support the Annex.
+
+****************************************************************
+

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent