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:

common pattern versus an Ada limitation

From:

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

Reply-To:

C. Daniel Cooper

Date:

Fri, 17 May 2002 16:23:29 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (122 lines)

In my job I get to look at lots of Ada, written in many styles across
a variety of large programs. Despite this diversity, I have noticed
the following common pattern that is consistently implemented using
a risky Ada construct. Please excuse this rather long email; but I'm
hoping this prestigious group can offer some enlightening comments.

The common pattern is "publish and subscribe", which is not surprising
in the event-driven systems that I see. Typically, there is a package
whose job it is to maintain some state with respect to some sequence
of incoming events. Other parts of the application that need to know
about the state-changes can "subscribe" to the event handler; when a
state-change occurs, the handler will "publish" the fact to all the
current subscribers.

The normal implementation of this is to encapsulate the code that
needs to know about the state-changes into a "callback" procedure,
and then subscribe to the event handler by giving it a pointer to that
procedure. The event handler adds the pointer to a list, and later
publishes events by calling each procedure on the list. So far, so
good. In fact, this implementation matches those described in public
literature (in Ada books as well as books about patterns), and even
the Ada95 Rationale advocates such an approach.

However, large real-world systems are not as static as this: they
usually include requirements for dynamic reconfiguration. The "publish
and subscribe" pattern can support this quite well: all that is needed
is capability to edit the callback list. The "subscribe" operation
-adds- to the list; and an "unsubscribe" operation can be provided to
-remove- from the list. For generality, we can even provide a boolean
query such as "is_subscribed" to assure, for example, that a subscriber
doesn't add itself more than once. These latter two operations are
-not- described anywhere that I have seen -- but the implementation
is intuitive enough: simply traverse the list looking for a matching
pointer, and if found, act accordingly.

But that's where the risky Ada construct comes in: Ada95 does not
guarantee comparisons of subprogram 'Access values. As explained
in [RM 3.10.2(39)], [RM 4.5.2(13)], and other places, a compiler
"implementation may consider two access-to-subprogram values to be
unequal, even though they designate the same subprogram. This might
be because one points directly to the subprogram, while the other
points to a special prologue that performs an Elaboration_Check and
then jumps to the subprogram." Thus, each 'Access attribute reference
for a given subprogram is allowed to designate a distinct wrapper if
needed, to support an indirect call.

So: given this context, please comment on the following, preferably
-not- at the level of detail I'm providing. What I'm looking for is
overall conceptual insights: forest-level wisdom derived from the
tree-level observations I'm describing.

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. So
it's quite disappointing that the above straightforward implementation
cannot be retained; yet all the alternatives I've seen are more complex
and/or cumbersome. Some examples include:

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.

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.

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.

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.

e) dispatching: This is a more sophisticated approach, wherein the
callbacks are mediated via tagged type dispatching rather than by
'Access subprogram values.

...and there are certainly other designs. But the point I'm making
is that there seems to be no equivalent for the simplicity of the
original implementation, which alas, Ada95 precludes. And worse, we
are misled by the public literature, which encourages us to -expect-
that the original implementation is advised.

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?


C. Daniel Cooper ==========v=======================.
Adv Computing Technologist | All opinions are mine |
206-655-3519               | and may not represent |
[log in to unmask]  | those of my employer. |
---------------------------^-----------------------<
The question is not "What is the answer?"; rather, |
the question is "What is the question?" --Poincare |
==================================================='

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