AADL Meeting Toulouse
1. AADL Parser – Middle of Feb. for experimentation
2. Name AADL V2 rather than AADL2
3. Action: Contained Property and Prototype use together at the same level. Also a shortcut for properties? JM, Peter will look at.
4. Generic Port Category ? Will talk about later. (prototype ports?)
5. Informal ballot between this meeting and the next one. Target fall release of standard.
6. Virtual buses would not always be bound to a bus (different than virtual processors). Like a connector. Protocols for communication even on the same processor.
Provides and requires virtual bus access?
What about when the software processing the protocol is different on each side? Would have to do through connection and components on each side.
7. Do we have too many connection patterns for Arrays? Implementation issue. OS. Problem may be when we have multiple dimensions (many things to connect).
8. Action: Can a connection that goes between two processes, for example, with arrays of threads within each, have binding for a specific connection to a bus within the connection between the processes? Peter will look into it.
9. Action: More discussion should be in the standard for Matching classifiers on Connection. OS. Peter will look at.
10. Q. OS At the high level, do we want to be able to say they will match – make it an incomplete model. Compiler will give you a working when typed and untyped are connected.
11. Decision - With clause – will be enforced – no with clause then no access.
12. JM – should property sets also have this restrictions. This is another dimension. We could consider. Property sets have unique names. Think about more.
13. BL – do we need nesting of property sets for system integrators?
14. Action: TV – can we restrict a property to apply to only the port of a process (it’s a protocol that only should be on the port of a process). Peter will think about it. PG: General agreement that this would be good for checking but may only be rarely used. We need not get too fine tuned with options.
15. Contained properties in the type? – only to enable moving the feature properties to the properties section. May want to remove.
16. Property Value can be removed. Rare conflict that can be resolved by providing full property set name.
17. Predefined property sets – we can break into more sets yet also not require the full qualifier. This may be the best approach rather than lists. Then order Alpha within the set.
18. Action: JM: Peter. Put the constant property back in? Its needed to insure that someone does not override your property value. Peter and John will talk more about since constant was difficult to implement and not being used. There may be another approach.
19. Action: Should we have conditional dispatching, conditional moding property? Dispatch when all inputs are new? Guards of error model annex would be an example. Perhaps a separate annex. Oleg is willing to work with Jeff, then with Peter. As a small annex or part of the behavior annex. Oleg will lead.
20. Elements of a port group without going down the hierarchy? PG
21. All the text may not be in place in 1.6 for flows.
22. We need to consider more about sync scopes – Reference-Time. Then would effect scope of modes. Hyperperiod would be over the sync area. Should it be both in the logical and physical domain? First thoughts are that it should.
23. Need to update modes for multiple clocks.
Document:
1. Properties – can not have – packages, properties themselves, property sets
- properties will be applies to package then for all classifiers.
Want to apply to package and to all elements in a package. Peter will work on way to do it.
2. Modes – if named in the type then all must be in the time, not the implementation. Keep it simple. Can you refine the modes, yes by adding modes,
3. Prototype matching rules. Uniformity is best. Leave default as is.
4. Type extension matching rule should continue as rule against type.
5. Need to describe the protocol through behavior annex rather than having a virtual bus to describe.
6. Property dependency – a periodic thread must eventually have the period defined. Calls for some type of constraint language. What do we need to make a specification complete. Future annex needed for constrain management. Currently we check in the compiler for these constraints, will probably specify the constraints in the process.
7. Derived property and annex for constraints. John will review the MARTE approach and Jerome will present the annex that ASSERT used. This annex exists. Explore derived property or other properties that would support the use of an annex. Jerome will post paper.
8. Peter will create a group for discussing the Behavior Annex. Pierre D will develop the document to be balloted. He will have it out two weeks before the meeting so it can be discussed at the April meeting.
9. Cheddar is working with the Behavior Annex to also incorporate taking info from the behavior description – for internal specification of data driven, timing can be in provided in the AADL.
10. Peter will integrate into the permissions the additional sync mechanisms for subprograms (threads also).
11. Jerome’s presentation – Code Generation Annex
12. Peter – will put Data_Type: enumeration in the language, may have been lost. See Jerome’s presentation.
13. Peter – will look into cleaning up, Jerome will express them in Ada and C.
14. Natural or Positive – some have and some do not – permission to not support all of them.
15. Action: Jerome will provide the ASSERT property set for review by Peter.
16. String literal to express what character set is being used
17. Maximum size for a string, define to be static?
18. How will we handle errors in a standard way.
19. Action: Jerome – will be responsible for A5 data modeling in the standard.
20. Conflicting names – need to be resolved.
21. Bag, set, stream – some languages will not support, they are not required to implement but what about portability?
22. Jerome and Mamoun will discuss mask for what parameters are frozen at dispatch. PortMask discussion.
23. Action: Peter will provide paper on Buffer optimization to Mamoun and Pierre for use in the programming annex. For formal proof, for validation of generation. Send to everyone on the mailing list.
24. DO178C may be interested in these optimizations and validations, proofs.
25. AADL code generator from MARTE will be provided – Madelaine will provide with also the text for annex.
26. Peter has already added text in the AADL standard to explain logical threads vs the services processors provide, physical threads.
27. Seville
- Jeff – logic specifications – 1 hr
- Jerome – Programming annex and data modeling– 3 hr
- Madelaine – UML AADL profile – 2 hr
- Pierre/Mamoun – Behavior Annex – 2 hr
- Who to invite to User day – 8 hr
- Informal Ballot review 10 hrs
- WWT in the demo day.
28. Decision: Do we need a property constant for prototypes when using arrays as an argument? Yes - prototypes should only be classifiers, not arrays. Array size can be a number, left out or a property constaint.
29. Decision - Get rid of the anonymous name space, tell Pierre/SPICES
30. Action: Thomas – will check on the division of properties in MARTE vs his recommendations
31. Data modeling –
32. Moving properties into an annex? Not yet. But having a separate document may be helpful because you always need to refer to the list of properties to select them. Hypertext would be helpful. Its in the OSATE toolset but the hypertext does not work, the links get thrown out.
33. Data modeling – should we add class. Thomas may provide. Data modeling will be a separate annex.
34. Property required – should also be enabled for the port.
35. Action: Use scenario – ports may have different protocol stacks, they reference lower than the top or at the top or …. Peter will work with John Mettenburg..
36. UML 2 profile is dead (but we may need to add to the MARTE profile).
SPICES –
Issues:
a. Knowledge of AADL across the partners very important, is a major issue in working together and making progress. Yet many were not familiar so takes time to come up.
b. Specification of the models, engineers are not used to modeling, but building instead, change of approach.
c. Each has his own tool approach, working together across tools requires pulling together.
Coordination:
Would like to coordinate with joint mailings with the AADL.
Possible later joint meeting.
SPICES finishes at end of 2009
IP belongs to the companies but some will put them in the public domain in OPEES.
SPICES presentations will be added to our presentations. Made available to both.
Nice slide on tool integrations.
SAM – functional architecture capture before AADL, transformation into the ADL with ATL. Flows, no architectural perspective yet. They do describe modes, ideas of port groups. Goes to database.
AIRBUS project related to the Air Traffic Control on the 380, experimenting
SYSML not hierarchical, also too complex so used SAM, from SADT.
Thales Radio – emphasis on getting the application the best way on the target with many types of processors.
Tools – industrial code generation and documentation objectives. Pierre Gaufillet.
Draft Document. Are the properties complete for our generation requirements?
Pierre - time to discuss properties for code generation at the next meetings. Container properties. Relates to Hood. Inside the container and with behavior annex. To C and to ASM. Linking to ARINC653.
Studies on ARINC 653 and POSIX platforms.
How do we know that the products are properly integrated. We will use flows and tests to the flows since they talk about the system. Also the behavior annex can give expected behavior.
AADL to SystemC generation – expected in March, involves creating the thread in software or hardware and dealing with the system analysis.
Execution platforms.- some questions:
AADL profile – not a UML profile, perhaps a subset of the AADL or patterns.
MDA – platform independent, with platform, from the platform up.
ADELE –
This will be the graphical editor available
Will be tracked on the Adele web page for problems.
Will be merged when the tool is delivered into the Topcased tracker.
Stable version to be provided in TOPCASED version 2, July 2008.
AADL source code will be exchanged from Adele and OSATE
TOPCASED released every 6 weeks. Starting point on version 2 is July.
Minor releases will not have major changes. The AADL meta model is not intrusive.
Look and feel is similar to current editor
Graphical id’s are not the same as source text lines so going back and forth the graphical identifier may change.
You need to carry information to go round trip. Could be in the XML.
Connection – code is cleanly re-imported.
Auto generation of AADL source so you can quickly evaluate.
AADL website should mention the creation of Adele and that it will be released with version 2 and with the new version of TOPCASED.
AAXL may also be the approach to exchange and then they invoke the source.
Traceability will be important so the AAXL will be important for tracing errors.
Develop a document. Between March 1-13th. Set-up a teleconference to discuss. Need a list of ideas. Pierre G. will propose.
CCM – Thomas – Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) 2
CCM: CORBA3 runs on CORBA 2 ORBS
Is a set of three notitions
- IDL3 interface description language
- CIF – is the API
- D&C – deployment and configuration
How to connect to the AADL?
Mappings between modeling languages and programming language (implantation language)
You will implement the AADL interfaces in CCM
Run an AADL application on top of a CORBA
This would give a rapid prototype but not analyzable given its dynamics
CCM is from the enterprise world, they do not care about timing. Yet with restrictions it can be used. We just want to have the API, not actually use the CORBA ORB. We would get rid of CORBA. We use the CCM just for its familiar descriptive approach for interfaces. Brings in CORBA data types.
ARINC 653 –
POSIX mapping of MetaH – Peter and I can look at the papers for POSIX integration
Window slot property – on a virtual processor, it is the key, a windows slot..
Time slots are at the processor level. Allowed binding for virtual processor properties. Property set for 653.
Ask Steve Hickman for his report.
Offset property for relative to partition. Do we have? Do we need.
Partition – guaranteed time vs general operating system thread which can be pre-empted.
From Oleg:
AR: Ana Rugina
PD: Pierre Dissaux
BL: Bruce Lewis
PF: Peter Feiler
JH: Jerome Hugues
JM: John Mettenberg
PG: Pierre Gaufillet
TV: Thomas Vergnaud
BL: Brian Larson (by telecon)
JF: Jean-Francois Rolland
MF: Mamoun Filali
JT: Jean-Francois Tilman
BZ: Bechir Zalila
VS: Vincent Seignole
tuesday, 2/5
======
BL describes current status of as well as related activities