E.5 Partition Communication Subsystem
[The Partition Communication
(PCS) provides facilities for supporting communication
between the active partitions of a distributed program. The package System.RPC
is a language-defined interface to the PCS.]
Reason: The prefix RPC is used rather
than RSC because the term remote procedure call and its acronym are more
The following language-defined
library package exists:
Ada.Streams; -- see 13.13.1
with Nonblocking => False is
Partition_Id is range
0 .. implementation-defined
Communication_Error : exception
Initial_Size : Ada.Streams.Stream_Element_Count) is new
Ada.Streams.Root_Stream_Type with private
Stream : in out
Item : out
Last : out
Stream : in out
Item : in
-- Synchronous call
Partition : in
Params : access
Result : access
-- Asynchronous call
Partition : in
Params : access
-- The handler for incoming RPCs
RPC_Receiver is access procedure
Params : access
Result : access
Partition : in
Receiver : in
... -- not specified by the language
A value of the type Partition_Id is used to identify
Implementation defined: The range of
An object of the type Params_Stream_Type is used
for identifying the particular remote subprogram that is being called,
as well as marshalling and unmarshalling the parameters or result of
a remote subprogram call, as part of sending them between partitions.
[The Read and Write procedures override the corresponding
abstract operations for the type Params_Stream_Type.]
The Do_RPC and Do_APC procedures send a message to
the active partition identified by the Partition parameter.
Implementation Note: It is assumed that
the RPC interface is above the message-passing layer of the network protocol
stack and is implemented in terms of it.
After sending the message, Do_RPC blocks the calling
task until a reply message comes back from the called partition or some
error is detected by the underlying communication system in which case
Communication_Error is raised at the point of the call to Do_RPC.
Reason: Only one exception is defined
in System.RPC, although many sources of errors might exist. This is so
because it is not always possible to distinguish among these errors.
In particular, it is often impossible to tell the difference between
a failing communication link and a failing processing node. Additional
information might be associated with a particular Exception_Occurrence
for a Communication_Error.
Do_APC operates in the same way as Do_RPC except
that it is allowed to return immediately after sending the message.
Upon normal return, the stream designated by the
Result parameter of Do_RPC contains the reply message.
The procedure System.RPC.Establish_RPC_Receiver
is called once, immediately after elaborating the library units of an
active partition (that is, right after the elaboration of the partition
if the partition includes an RCI library unit, but prior to invoking
the main subprogram, if any. The Partition parameter is the Partition_Id
of the active partition being elaborated.
parameter designates an implementation-provided procedure called the
which will handle all RPCs received by the partition
from the PCS. Establish_RPC_Receiver saves a reference to the RPC-receiver;
when a message is received at the called partition, the RPC-receiver
is called with the Params stream containing the message. When the RPC-receiver
returns, the contents of the stream designated by Result is placed in
a message and sent back to the calling partition.
Implementation Note: It is defined by
the PCS implementation whether one or more threads of control should
be available to process incoming messages and to wait for their completion.
Implementation Note: At link-time, the
linker provides the RPC-receiver and the necessary tables to support
it. A call on Establish_RPC_Receiver is inserted just before the call
on the main subprogram.
Reason: The interface between the PCS
(the System.RPC package) and the RPC-receiver is defined to be dynamic
in order to allow the elaboration sequence to notify the PCS that all
packages have been elaborated and that it is safe to call the receiving
stubs. It is not guaranteed that the PCS units will be the last to be
elaborated, so some other indication that elaboration is complete is
If a call on Do_RPC is aborted, a cancellation message
is sent to the called partition, to request that the execution of the
remotely called subprogram be aborted.
To be honest: The full effects of this
message are dependent on the implementation of the PCS.
This paragraph was
declared in System.RPC are potentially blocking operations.
The implementation of the RPC-receiver shall be reentrant[,
thereby allowing concurrent calls on it from the PCS to service concurrent
remote subprogram calls into the partition].
Reason: There seems no reason to allow
the implementation of RPC-receiver to be nonreentrant, even though we
don't require that every implementation of the PCS actually perform concurrent
calls on the RPC-receiver.
An implementation shall not restrict the replacement of the body of System.RPC.
An implementation shall not restrict children of System.RPC. [The related
implementation permissions in the introduction to Annex A do not apply.]
Reason: The point of System.RPC is to
let the user tailor the communications mechanism without requiring changes
to or other cooperation from the compiler. However, implementations can
restrict the replacement of language-defined units. This requirement
overrides that permission for System.RPC.
If the implementation of System.RPC is provided by the user, an implementation
shall support remote subprogram calls as specified.
If the implementation takes advantage of the implementation permission
to use a different specification for System.RPC, it still needs to use
it for remote subprogram calls, and allow the user to replace the body
of System.RPC. It just isn't guaranteed to be portable to do so in Ada
2005 - an advantage which was more theoretical than real anyway.
The implementation of the PCS shall document whether
the RPC-receiver is invoked from concurrent tasks. If there is an upper
limit on the number of such tasks, this limit shall be documented as
well, together with the mechanisms to configure it (if this is supported).
Documentation Requirement: Whether the
RPC-receiver is invoked from concurrent tasks, and if so, the number
of such tasks.
The PCS is allowed to contain implementation-defined
interfaces for explicit message passing, broadcasting, etc. Similarly,
it is allowed to provide additional interfaces to query the state of
some remote partition (given its partition ID) or of the PCS itself,
to set timeouts and retry parameters, to get more detailed error status,
etc. These additional interfaces should be provided in child packages
Implementation defined: Implementation-defined
interfaces in the PCS.
A body for the package System.RPC need not be supplied
by the implementation.
Reason: It is presumed that a body for
the package System.RPC might be extremely environment specific. Therefore,
we do not require that a body be provided by the (compiler) implementation.
The user will have to write a body, or acquire one, appropriate for the
An alternative declaration is allowed for package System.RPC as long
as it provides a set of operations that is substantially equivalent to
the specification defined in this subclause.
Reason: Experience has proved that the
definition of System.RPC given here is inadequate for interfacing to
existing distribution mechanisms (such as CORBA), especially on heterogeneous
systems. Rather than mandate a change in the mechanism (which would break
existing systems), require implementations to support multiple mechanisms
(which is impractical), or prevent the use of Annex E facilities with
existing systems (which would be silly), we simply make this facility
One of the purposes behind System.RPC was that
knowledgeable users, rather than compiler vendors, could create this
package tailored to their networks. Experience has shown that users get
their RPC from vendors anyway; users have not taken advantage of the
flexibility provided by this defined interface. Moreover, one could compare
this defined interface to requiring Ada compilers to use a defined interface
to implement tasking. No one thinks that the latter is a good idea, why
should anyone believe that the former is?
Therefore, this subclause is made optional. We considered deleting the
subclause outright, but we still require that users may replace the package
(whatever its interface). Also, it still provides a useful guide to the
implementation of this feature.
Whenever possible, the PCS on the called partition
should allow for multiple tasks to call the RPC-receiver with different
messages and should allow them to block until the corresponding subprogram
Implementation Advice: The PCS should
allow for multiple tasks to call the RPC-receiver.
The Write operation on a stream of type Params_Stream_Type
should raise Storage_Error if it runs out of space trying to write the
Item into the stream.
Implementation Advice: The System.RPC.Write
operation should raise Storage_Error if it runs out of space when writing
could also dynamically allocate more space as needed, only propagating
Storage_Error if the allocator
it calls raises Storage_Error. This storage could be managed through
a controlled component of the stream object, to ensure that it is reclaimed
when the stream object is finalized.
10 The package System.RPC is not designed
for direct calls by user programs. It is instead designed for use in
the implementation of remote subprograms calls, being called by the calling
stubs generated for a remote call interface library unit to initiate
a remote call, and in turn calling back to an RPC-receiver that dispatches
to the receiving stubs generated for the body of a remote call interface,
to handle a remote call received from elsewhere.
Incompatibilities With Ada 95
The specification of System.RPC can now be tailored
for an implementation. If a program replaces the body of System.RPC with
a user-defined body, it might not compile in a given implementation of
Ada 2005 (if the specification of System.RPC has been changed).
Wording Changes from Ada 95
Ada 2005 and 2012 Editions sponsored in part by Ada-Europe