[aadl]: [aadl-modeling]: AADL meta-model changes

[Pierre Dissaux]

> Pierre,

Hi Peter,
>
> You are correct in that at the previous meetings we had not discussed the 
> fact that for the processor features we have the same issue
> in that the "proxy" features with the keyword processor are just referred 
> to, but not explicitly declared.
> Lutz had pointed that out to me when he started working on the internal 
> event stuff and I mentioned it last week in a sub-bullet when
> commenting on the internal event errata progress of the AADL V2.1 errata.
> Lutz went ahead to accommodate both in the Meta model.

Thanks for the clarification
I was indeed not present on Wednesday last week and thus missed this part of 
the discussion
Would it be possible to complement the OSATE meta-model update with a 
corresponding proposal for the AADL BNF,
so that we can implement the same changes in our tools ?

Pierre

>
> Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre Dissaux [mailto:pierre.dissaux at ellidiss.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 12:00 PM
To: Peter Feiler; sae-aadl-users at lists.sei.cmu.edu; 
aadl-modeling at lists.sei.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: [aadl]: [aadl-modeling]: AADL meta-model changes

> Hi Pierre,

Hi Peter,

>
> We discussed the explicit declaration of internal events
> (self.<event>) as an errata in the July, Sept 2013 and Feb 2014
> meeting. See slide 34 from the Sept meeting about proceeding with it.
> There is an entry in the errata page as well:
> https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/aadl/index.php/SAE_AADL_AS5506B_Errata#8.x_Co
> mponent_Internal_Events

I do remember the discussions about the use of self.event notation, but 
nothing about what Julien proposes in his example (new "internal features" 
and "processor feature" sections inside thread implementations)

>
> We had several errata approved by the committee that required a change
> to the Meta model. Lutz has made those changes.

I understand the point for OSATE implementation, but if the corresponding 
changes are not done in the BNF definition of the standard, this causes 
issues for tools interoperability.
Fortunately, we have a committee for that ;-)

Pierre

>
> Since some of the errata are more than editorial, Alexey raised the
> point about possibly doing a V2.2 ballot and release.
>
> I need to update the Wiki Errata page with status and new items from
> the Sept and Feb meeting.
>
> Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: sae-aadl-users-bounces+phf=sei.cmu.edu at lists.sei.cmu.edu
[mailto:sae-aadl-users-bounces+phf=sei.cmu.edu at lists.sei.cmu.edu] On Behalf 
Of Pierre Dissaux
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:45 AM
To: sae-aadl-users at lists.sei.cmu.edu; aadl-modeling at lists.sei.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: [aadl]: [aadl-modeling]: AADL meta-model changes

> Dear AADL users,

Hi Julien,

I do no remember these changes have been even discussed by the committee And 
if I missed this discussion, they haven't for sure be adopted by a proper 
ballot.

So I assume we must consider them as OSATE experiments instead of "revisions 
in the AADL standard"
As far our tools are concerned, we will remain compliant with the official 
standard that is defined by the SAE core document.

Best regards

Pierre

>
> According to the last changes and revisions in the AADL standard, the
> meta-model has been updated. Changes have been applied and propagated
> in the develop branch of OSATE and will be included in the next stable
> version that will be released in April. Please note that these changes
> might impact tools and plugins built on top of OSATE.
>
> For that reason, it might be useful that all developers check that
> their tool is compliant with the new meta-model in order to make sure
> it will work with the next stable release. You can review the changes
> made on the meta-model here:
> https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/aadl/index.php/Metamodel_updates#Internal_Fea
> tures_and_Processor_Features
>
> Best regards.