DVT:Customer Meeting Notes 032806

From AadlWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

1. OSATE 1.2
A. There is a recent release OSATE 1.2 available on www.aadl.info, which depends on the latest EMF etc. Should team DaVinci use this latest release as a base for the development? Earlier direction was to use OSATE 1.1. Side note; latest ATL also depends on EMF 2.1.1, which could fuel the argument of using the latest OSATE.

  • Preferably DaVinci must use the most recent version in CVS. Otherwise use OSATE 1.2 because it fixed a lot of bugs found in 1.1.


2. Initially we created a prototype for operation working in the entire model. No selection of ports or connections were necessary.
A. Is this still one possible scenario for Introduction of Port Groups?

  • Yes, but it has a low priority compared to the operation where the user can select the port he wants work with.

B. In this particular case, should the Wizard be displayed?

  • No, there is no need for the wizard.

C. In case the wizard is not displayed, is this a different menu option?

  • Yes, this must be a different operation.


3. Prioritization of scenarios for Introduction of Port Groups.
A. Should DaVinci work in the implementation of all possible scenarios of Introduction of Port Groups? Or should we prioritize them and based on an time estimate decide whether a scenario is worth implementing? (Soon, I will produce a list containing the scenarios we have detected)

  • Yes, DaVinci must work on all possible scenarios.
  • Scenarios where a port is selected are the ones with the highest priority as opposed to selecting connections and component types.


4. From Customer Notes 03/21/06 Q.4.
Component A

Port 1
Port 2

Component B

Port 3
Port 4

Component B.Impl Implementation

Connections:
Port 1 -> Port 3
Port 2 -> Port 4
Mode:
mode_id1
mode_id2
mode_id1 Port 4 -> mode_id2

And the user selects Port 4 to Introduce Port Group.

A. Should the model be translated to:

Component A

PortGroup 1

Component B

PortGroup 2

Component B.Impl Implementation

Connections:
Port 1 -> Port 3
PortGroup 1 -> PortGroup 2
Mode:
mode_id1
mode_id2
mode_id1 PortGroup 2.Port 4 -> mode_id2
  • Yes, the output is correct.

B. In this last line, Port Group 2 must be the Port Group Type or the Port Group Id when defined at Component B?

  • It must be port group id.


5. How to handle the following situation?
PortGroup_Type1

Port_1

PortGroup_Type2

Port_2

Component_TypeA

PortGroup_Id1 : PortGroup_Type1

Component_TypeB

PortGroup_Id2 : PortGroup_Type2

Component_TypeB.Impl Implementation

Connections:
PortGroup_1 -> PortGroup_2
Mode:
mode_id1
mode_id2
mode_id1 PortGroup_2.Port_2 -> mode_id2

And the user selects PortGroup_Id2 to Introduce Port Group.

A. Should the model be translated to:

PortGroup_Type1

Port_1

PortGroup_Type2

Port_2

PortGroup_Type1_1

PortGroup_1

PortGroup_Type2_1

PortGroup_2

Component_TypeA

PortGroup_Id1_1 : PortGroup_Type1_1

Component_TypeB

PortGroup_Id2_1 : PortGroup_Type2_1

Component_TypeB.Impl Implementation

Connections:
PortGroup_1_1 -> PortGroup_2_1
Mode:
mode_id1
mode_id2
mode_id1 PortGroup_2_1.PortGroup_2.Port_2 -> mode_id2
  • No, because it is not possible to have a reference to nested port groups. In this case, the reference in the last line "PortGroup_2_1.PortGroup_2.Port_2" is not valid in AADL.
  • However, the customer asked us to verify if "PortGroup_2_1.Port_2" is a valid and functional reference.


6. Is the priority given to the quality attribute scenarios final?

  • Yes, it is final.
  • Not only high priorities are important but also medium ones.
  • If we can convince the customer why we think a scenario with medium priority is not not doable, or why it goes against a high priority scenario, or any other valid reason then we may get rid of that medium priority scenario. Otherwise, we must address it in the implementation.
Personal tools