LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  May 2002

TEAM-ADA May 2002

Subject:

Re: common pattern versus an Ada limitation

From:

"C. Daniel Cooper" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

C. Daniel Cooper

Date:

Mon, 20 May 2002 13:08:29 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (253 lines)

Thanks for the great responses! I've cobbled them together to follow
a train of thought, interspersing them below:

> > 1) Alternative Implementations
> > ------------------------------
> > Invariably, when I point out the above issue to developers, they
> > react with surprise. It is not common knowledge that Ada95 lacks this
> > guarantee, and the bugs it can manifest are elusive, since dynamic
> > reconfiguration is typically a massive operation (akin to startup) with
> > a combinatorial explosion that consequently sees little testing.

> I don't think I understand exactly what you want to do.  There seem
> to be several solutions with minimal impact on existing code. It seems
> unlikely the Ada rules will change any time soon, especially since
> they appear to have a very reasonable and understandable justification.

My thrust in this dialogue is an Ada advocacy issue. I'm not seeking to
clarify a language wart or suggest workarounds, but rather to expose the
perspective of Ada developers: it's a fact of life that the latter are
never totally conversant with the ARM. Also, I'm not as focused on the
possible implementations (below), per se, as on how the language and
the public literature -mislead- those developers into subtle trouble,
as evidenced by the real-world implementations that I see. So, for an
"alternative implementation", I'm looking for an approach that is not
driven -merely- by avoidance of this language limitation (assuming
the developers are even aware of it), but rather hoping for one that
seems as "obvious and intuitive" to those developers as the flawed
implementation does.

> Do you ever have a case of multiple tasks registering the same callback
> routine?  If so, how does one unregister its callback as opposed to
> its sibling's callback?

A good question! I haven't seen any code that specifically worries
about that -- a real issue nonetheless. The more likely paranoia is
that during a complex series of reconfigurations something will fall
down the crack, and a given subscriber will re-subscribe having not
unsubscribed first, thus ending up on the callback list more than
once. This paranoia gives rise to code that compares the subscribing
callback to those already on the list, in order to avoid this situation.
------------------------------
> > a) single 'Access: The "proper" thing to do is a technical tweak, as
> > described at <http://www.adaic.org/docs/95style/html/sec_7/7-3-2.html>
> > Define a single 'Access constant along with each callback subprogram
> > declaration, and use that constant for all references. This isn't a
> > bad solution, but it presumes the subscribers know how the publisher
> > is implemented (or will evolve). Maybe such a rule should be added to
> > program coding standards -- as a cliche.

> I don't follow this objection. All the subscriber needs to know is the
> profile of the callback; what else can change that affects the
> declaration of the single 'access constant?

The issue is in expecting developers to -know- they should use the
single 'Access constant. Typically, the publisher side of the code is
developed separately (by a different group or a third party) and all
that the subscriber developers have available is the publisher's spec --
as is appropriate per Ada's contract model. The latter folks should not
need to know how the "unsubscribe" operation has been implemented (or
will evolve), and in particular should not be expected to -compensate-
for its (possible) misuse of an Ada construct. This is the -only-
reason that solution (a) is needed at all: it is nothing but pure and
unexpected compensation that impacts -every- subscriber.

> The best solution to your problem is a coding standard requiring a
> single 'Access for each subprogram in your program. To be effective,
> this would have to be checked with a tool. As a practical matter, you
> won't see any wrappers with library-level subprograms that aren't in
> generic units, so the pattern usually works. (Which may be the most
> dangerous thing in this case.)

This should probably be done regardless, and may indeed be the "best
solution". It would help by raising awareness of this arcane language
limitation, and by addressing it as a cliche: ie, one should code
this way all the time, whether the workaround is needed or not. Thus,
each callback subprogram declaration would be paired with a (single)
'Access constant, imitating the cliche of declaring a class-wide access
type for each tagged type.
------------------------------
> > b) use 'Address: The System.Address of the callback could be used
> > instead of its 'Access value. This would require a system service for
> > performing the call (usually provided by the OS), but it defeats the
> > type checking that 'Access enjoys. And besides, it's not clear that
> > 'Address has any more guarantee for matching than 'Access does.

No one commented on this, but I would infer from Randy's lengthy
explanation (thanks!) that 'Address suffers from the same limitations
as 'Access (and if not, it should!) and hence is not an alternative.
------------------------------
> > c) subscriber id: This approach assigns a unique identifier to each
> > subscriber and uses that instead of the 'Access value for matching
> > in the callback list. This adds complexity and maintenance concerns,
> > and resists the introduction of a new subscriber into the system
> > -- although I've heard it argued that that is a -good- thing: only
> > "authorized" subscribers will be able to subscribe, by virtue of having
> > been assigned an id.

> How about the "laundry ticket" method
>   My_Registration := Register(Callback'access);
> followed later by
>   Unregister(My_Registration);
> You could even have the laundry ticket My_Registration be a controlled
> type so it could be guaranteed to Unregister itself when it goes away.

This is version of solution (c). Basically, the issue is that developers
have a two-fold expectation of a subprogram pointer, namely, to support
indirect invocation and also subprogram identification. Since Ada does
not guarantee the latter, solutions of this kind decouple the two.

> This is indeed a better design. It is possible to have a fast
> implementation to look for the ID (AVL tree for example). More over
> it is then possible to have a "readable" log file. For each use of
> the interface you can log which client is calling.

Ideally, it should be requirements such as those that would drive the
developers to an approach like this one -- not mere avoidance of a
language wart.  But lacking requirements beyond those in my original
email, what justifies this approach over the flawed one (other than
the flaw itself)? Do we see such an example in the public literature?
------------------------------
> > d) sockets: A variation of this is that every possible subscriber is
> > allocated a "socket" and the socket table replaces the callback list:
> > no search (involving a match) is needed, since each subscriber has its
> > own socket. The table is statically maximal, the equivalent of every
> > subscriber having been added at system startup. Dynamic reconfiguration
> > is achieved via a boolean flag in each socket, indicating whether a
> > given subscriber participates in the current configuration (ie, whether
> > or not the event handler should call that subscriber's callback). This
> > may be efficient but can consume a great deal of memory, much of it
> > wasted on non-configured subscribers.

No comments on this one. It avoids the identification issue altogether.
------------------------------
> > e) dispatching: This is a more sophisticated approach, wherein the
> > callbacks are mediated via tagged type dispatching rather than by
> > 'Access subprogram values.

> Every publish-subscribe interface I have ever seen in OO languages
> used polymorphism.  Function pointers are used in languages that
> don't directly support polymorphism.  IMHO, the only thing access to
> subprograms is good for is interfacing to C (or other low-level) code;
> dispatching handles this type of stuff more cleanly.  For instance,
> you can carry data in the dispatching object, which is quite handy in
> most instances.

Same question as above: what requirements justify this approach over
the flawed one (other than the flaw itself)? Said another way: assuming
the developers are ignorant of the language limitation, what line of
reasoning would (seredipitously) lead them to this solution rather
than to the unexpectedly flawed one? BTW, for the implementations I
have seen, the callback profile includes an input parameter for the
same data that the dispatching object would provide.

> But the *really* best solution is an OOP-based solution. This
> is extensible and type-safe and doesn't require unsafe compares and
> doesn't even need (visible) access types. Admittedly, there is a bit
> more work up front, but I think access types should avoided unless there
> is really dynamic allocation (which can't happen with subprograms in
> Ada).

"Extensibility" is a requirement that could argue for this approach.
However in my discussions with developers, it is very difficult to pin
down just what constitutes extensibility: it seems to be a matter of
taste... and I've heard arguments that the flawed solution does meet
extensibility requirements. But it's the "bit more work up front",
lacking some other motivation, that leads developers to -not- choose
this solution. In this dialogue here, I'm hoping for an "obvious and
intuitive" reason that developers who are ignorant of the language
limitation would choose an unflawed solution.

> Of course this is the design to use with Ada95, as Corey said, it is
> the implementation used in OO languages, it works just fine and does
> not suffer the 'Access issue you have raised.

I'd sure like to see it in the Ada literature! Lacking that, is there
a web site that provides a good example?
------------------------------
> > ...and there are certainly other designs.

> In this example, the event handler can provide an entry on which tasks
> may block, being released when the event occurs. Each "subscriber"
> can provide a waiting task that waits on the event, then invokes
> whatever action the specific "subscriber" requires. A "subscriber"
> can "unsubscribe" by having the waiting task terminate the entry
> call prematurely.

I've heard this approach discussed, but have never actually seen it. In
embedded real-time systems, the timing requirements tend to override
the concurrency ones, and rendezvous is avoided in favor of callback
invocation. I neglected to list this approach in my original email.

> If you have piles of existing code containing
>      Register(Callback'access);
> you could make the Register procedure look at the code at location
> Callback'access and, if it's a short wrapper, simulate it to find the
> real routine.  You would need some information on just what sort of
> code your compiler generates, of course.

Wow, I never would have thought of that one! At the very least, this
approach is arcane and depends on both the compiler and its version.
Not "obvious and intuitive": I'd be glad if the 'Access comparison
issue itself were more widely known, let alone this kind of knowledge.

> > 2) Language Revision
> > --------------------
> > This issue naturally leads to the question: can the next language
> > revision for Ada provide the missing guarantee, assuring a match
> > in comparisons of subprogram access values that designate the same
> > subprogram?

> Perhaps we could make pragma Export (Ada, ...) do what you want?
> (pragma Import has additional semantics for convention Ada).

Ideally, a language revision would simply hard-guarantee subprogram
'Access comparisons -- without making them optional. As in solution
(a), a pragma approach would require subscriber developers to -know-
the publisher's need for applying the pragma in every subscriber.

> IMHO, the only thing access to
> subprograms is good for is interfacing to C (or other low-level) code;

Well, eliminating subprogram 'Access comparisons altogether would
be a step backwards. It's a desirable feature to keep -- if it were
fully guaranteed.

> Certainly, we could get rid of the rule by disallowing the use of
> 'Access on subprograms that come from generic instances, but that
> is a far worse wart on the language than the current rule. We want
> subprograms in generics to be as 'normal' as possible.

And -partially- eliminating subprogram 'Access comparisons would be a
(smaller) step backwards. What about a compiler implementation that
included a value (address or otherwise) with every wrapper, whose
sole purpose is to provide the "identification" part of the two-fold
developer expectation of 'Access?

> If you are using GNAT compiler then you may consider the Code_Address
> attribute instead of Access (see Implementation Defined Attributes in
> GNAT Reference Manual).

Since I don't have access to the Reference Manual: does 'Code_Address
meet the two-fold developer expectation, namely: provide the desired
comparison guarantee, as well as invocation of the subprogram thus
designated? If so, could it be standardized? At the very least, it
is an existence proof that the language limitation -could- be removed.


C. Daniel Cooper ==========v=================v=======================v
Adv Computing Technologist | processes       | All opinions are mine |
206-655-3519               | + architectures | and may not represent |
[log in to unmask]  |   = systems     | those of my employer. |
===========================^=================^=======================^

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager