Minutes of Internet SIG - Meeting 13 (original) (raw)
OMG Internet Platform Special Interest Group
Dublin, Ireland
September 22, 1997
OMG Document internet/97-09-01
OMG Internet Platform SIG homepage
Agenda
- Object Translation and Manipulation (OTAM), Shel Sutton, MITRE
- Reactive Model and Parallel Java, Guillaume Doumenc, Soft Mountain and Sylvie Simon, France Telecom/CNET-CAEN
- Compositional Software Architectures, Craig Thompson, OBJS
- Roadmap Discussion
Attendees
- Anne Aldous, anne_aldous@aussmpt.austin.ibm.com IBM Corporation
- Dan Andrus, dandrus@novell.com, Novell, Inc.
- Bill Beckwith, bill.beckwith@ois.com, Objective Interface Systems, Inc.
- Umesh Bellur, ubellur@us.oracle.com, Oracle Corporation
- Peter Bonham, bonham_peter@tandem.com, Tektonic Software
- Bill Briner, billb@cainc.com, Century Analysis, Inc.
- David Y. Chang, dchang@austin.ibm.com, IBM Corporation
- Simon Clark, s.clark@tecc.co.uk, Trans Enterprise Computer Communications, Ltd
- Tim Clark, clark@mpi.com, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Paul Clements, p.e.clements@lboro.ac.uk, MSI Research Institute
- Paul Cunningham, paulc@selectst.com, SELECT Software Tools
- Richard Dixon , R.M.Dixon@dcs.hull.ac.uk, Medical Informatics Group
- Guillaume Doumenc, doumenc@soft-mountain.fr, Soft Mountain
- Robert Filman, filman@mcc.com, MCC
- John Fleming, johnf@orbism.com, Orbism Ltd.
- Declan Flynn, declan_flynn@ie.ibm.com, IBM Ireland
- David Gamble, davg@mfltd.co.uk, Micro Focus, Ltd.
- Hein Haas, hein@pmc.philips.com, Philips Medical Systems
- Daryl Frederick Heinz, dfheinz@objectverse.com, Objectverse Technologies, Inc.
- Bob Hodges, bhodges@ti.com, Sematech/Texas Instruments
- Bernard Holland, Orbism Ltd.
- Clyde Icuspit, icuspit@ug.eds.com, EDS Unigraphics
- Armond D. Inselberg, adi@wdl.lmco.com, Loral/Lockheed Martin
- Kazuya Kosaka, kosaka@trl.ibm.co.jp, IBM Corporation
- Salil Kulkarni , salil@loc252.tandem.com, Tandem Computers, Inc.
- Stefan Langemalm, stla@gbg.ifsab.se, IFS Research & Development AB
- Scott Luttgen, Synergex International Corporation
- Simon C. Nash, nash@hursley.ibm.com, IBM UK Ltd.
- Kurt Ogris, kuog@csesystems.com, CSE Systems Corporation
- Silas Larry Smith, slsmith@vnet.ibm.com, IBM Corporation
- Martin Stoewer, martin.stoewer@lido.net, Lufthansa German Airlines
- Sheldon C. Sutton, shel@mitre.org, The MITRE Corporation
- Simon Sylvie, sylve.simon@cnet.francetelecom.fr France Telecom-CNET
- Kuniaki Tabata, tabata@sdl.hitachi.co.jp, Hitachi, Ltd.
- Craig W. Thompson, thompson@objs.com, Object Services and Consulting, Inc.
- Jim Trezzo, jtrezzo@us.oracle.com, Oracle Corporation
- Guy Vezina, guy.vezina@drev.dnd.ca, Defence Research Establishment Valcartier
- Krystian Wirski, ab130@issc.debbs.ndhq.dnd.ca, Department of National Defence
- Fred Waskiewicz, fred.waskiewicz@sematech.org, Sematech, Inc.
Object Transfer and Manipulation (OTAM), Shel Sutton, MITRE
OTAM is a proposed information access common facility based loosely on ISO FTAM . It consists of a virtual file system that provides an interface to a collection of physical file stores and database records. A Trader stores the file and database schemas plus potentially more (e.g., data conversions). This is an attempt to objectify file systems so CORBA can operate on them. FTAM can be viewed as a file system adapter.
Shel drew a picture:
native file system - initiator - receptor - file system
|where receptor connects to virtual file store (schema)
The idea of "service regimes" involves four regimes:
- application connection regime
- file selection (select and create files)
- attribute read
- file access (open and close, locate and erase), and data xfer (read/write, xfer) Q: Does FTAM require state? A: Yes but OTAM might not.
Q: Is OTAM a service or a common facility?
- it seems like it is the Information Access Architecture for a persistence service that allows plug ins in the backend to provide community access to information sources
- it could use the query service invisibly in the back end. Or you could use it in the front end on top of OTAM but query service seems independent since OTAM does not contain the query interface The question raises some key issues. Encapsulation in persistence hides all details of the access but as a facility we want to expose the ability (to someone if not the facility user to augment the facility by adding new backend data sources. So there must be visible interfaces that some role of developer can use to do this. So while this might possibly expose the persistence interface it has internal structure. (In fact, it can probably be viewed as a federation of the persistence service. See the talk below on Composition, which includes a discussion of the federation pattern.)
Another issue is, what exact functionality is provided by OTAM? Just persistence or concurrency too? What about transactions, queries, naming, naming of records and fields, some sort of API to an indexing mechanism, some variant of a trader? All TBD. But the issue raised, case another way is, OTAM could choose to mixin or not mixin several of these services - so in a way it is a family of common facilities, not single one. (The word_repository_ has this same characteristic. That is why is has been impossible to define as a single mix of functionality lo these many years.)
Shel expects an OTAM white paper to be available at the next OMG meeting and hopes to hold a half-day workshop on OTAM.
Reactive Model and Parallel Java, Guillaume Doumenc, Soft Mountain and Sylvie Simon, France Telecom/CNET-CAEN
Talk Title: Parallel execution and assembly of CORBA and Java components
Abstract:
This talk will consist of two parts:
- a presentation of Reactive Technology by Soft Mountain
- examples of application by France Telecom/CNET. Reactive technology is a result of joint research studies by INRIA/CMA, Soft Mountain and CNET. The Soft Mountain CafeOle environment enables event based communication and synchronization between CORBA/Java components. It uses standard transportation facilities of underlying distribution architectures (CORBA, RMI). Reactive'Java and Reactive'C++ are programming tools which integrate the event model directly into Java and C++ respectively. Soft Mountain Reactive COS is the CORBA implementation of the Soft Mountain CafeOle glue software for componentware. It may be seen as a CORBA Common Object Service providing for:
- an execution model based on an advanced broadcast event mechanism and distributed scheduling based on components behavior,
- an efficient programming tool with a state compiler. Soft Mountain Reactive Magnets is a Rapid Application Development Tool (RAD) which allows to assemble Java components. The user can graphically drag and drop Java components and link them together to build his Java application.
A prototype was developed by CNET-Caen in the electronic commerce domain. Reactive technology allows Internet Service Providers to customize their service offer thanks to different assembly schemes of their own service components and if necessary other providers service components. Other prototypes were developed by CNET-Grenoble in the area of network management. Future work is planned in CNET-Caen on the integration of Reactive Technology into France Telecom Intranet service offer.
Notes:
The talk described event driven reactive components in a broadcast environment. The execution model is alternating idle and reaction cycle; events trigger or activate a component; all components react; there many be internal events. When the system goes quiescent then that completes the cycle. There is a combination of events AND, OR, NOT. (Seems like its related to Event-Condition-Action rules). This is a declarative approach.
They have defined two tools. Reactive C++ and Reactive Java. These are preprocessors that translate to finite state machines. Example constructs:
- Await event or Await expression sequence of events
- Loop � on event
- Restart � on event There is no notion of time-out, no mapping to a wall clock, only virtual time so a cycle could last for hours.
To construct events, start with a universe and hierarchically componentize the parts. Universes can be synchronous or anynchronous. One can dynamically add new universes or components. Once set, the visibility domain cannot change. Visibility domains cannot overlap.
Products
- CafeOle (get it?) - build reactive model on different transport layers. Built on Chorus real time ORB. Being used in Telco equipment to create more complex network management.
- ReactiveSlots - higher level reactive interface, with reactive aggregation. Use Visual Java development tools off the shelf. Use their tools for assembly; then administrative environment.
Experience with reactive technology:
- CNET-Grenoble uses reactive technology for network management
- CNET-Sophia lets customer configure his own services and simulate the result
- CNET-Caen/Pivoine - electronic commerce related to Intranet This latter provides service composition/customization. Service providers provide business services; graphical applets; portfolio management/stock exchange monitoring/threshold detection. Now assemble all these. Uses CaféOlé. Start with a list of components minus descriptions/introspection. Service creation by component assembly. Associations between customer profiles (her special assemblies) and services. Installation and execution. Can use Java or IDL components.
Example: Portfolio has two input events that trigger: sell and buy. Threshold object so when threshold is more than t then sell. Supplier SP1 provides monitoring of stock exchange. SP3 offers mobile phone interface. SP2 offers display applets to GUI the stock changes. The reactive system provides monitoring, even management. Customer wants to set up alarms and displays and for her stocks. Uses CORBA bus for transmissions. If stock change, that goes to threshold detection, that goes to portfolio change, that affects pie chart, �
Q: did you try other approaches: procedural or workflow. A: Not really, but this way is easy enough for non-programmers. Rather than top down workflow, we want to add new services dynamically. Component definer must be computer skilled. But customer just assembles.
Directions: Intranet services for communities. Phone over IP, IP network management, groupware tools. Graphical assembly. Real-time aspects versus logical time.
Towards Compositional Software Architectures,Craig Thompson, Object Services and Consulting, Inc.
See "Thoughts on OMA-NG: Next Generation Object Management Architecture" on the OMG server (unprotected). The talk covers mainly end-to-end architectural properties that componentware must have. The audience largely agrees that OMG faces the issues listed in the paper. This led into a discussion on the related work on Quality of Service in Open Distributed Processing that is also being cast as providing a framework (not an architecture) for architectural properties.
Roadmap Discussion
Thompson described the history of Internet SIG. The first six or so meetings were informational. Over the next several meetings, we issued an Internet Services Architecture RFI, got responses, analyzed them into a set of Recommendations, which we then took to the roadmap committees of ORBOS and Common Facilities (ending that work item for Internet SIG). That work has since resulted in several RFPs including the Reverse Java Mapping, Firewalls, and the Internet RFP (no responders).
Thompson stated that Internet SIG has had two open work items at the last few meetings: OTAM and Compositional Software. The OTAM work is still proceeding but the Compositional Software work has resulted in a finished green paper (architectural paper) and this work is now being moved to ORMSC since they are chartered to do revisions to the OMA Reference Model, which is what the green paper is aimed at.
That leaves Internet SIG with one main work item, OTAM. Shel Sutton promised a first draft version of a green paper by the next meeting and suggested we hold a half day meeting to review it.
Other suggestions for the next meeting:
- Thompson suggested that a near term green paper we might produce would cover architectures for hooking up the web to ORBs.
- Thompson will probably talk about the web-object intermediary architecture that OBJS is working on
- Robert Filman (MCC) - talk about the MCC OIP project (TBD)
- Peter Bonham (Tandem, bonham_peter@tandem.com) volunteered to talk about their web-object experiences
- HTTP-NG - Bill Janssen (TBD)
- XML-IDL - informational presentation from {Frank Manola, TBD}
- Larry Smith (TBD)
- IIOP over HTTP (TBD)
- focus the morning on information presentations and the afternoon on an OTAM workshop to avoid some of the competition with the OMG AB (Shel Sutton)