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  October 1998

TEAM-ADA October 1998

Subject:

Re: Ada83 to Ada95 transition

From:

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

Reply-To:

C. Daniel Cooper

Date:

Tue, 27 Oct 1998 22:48:22 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (131 lines)

Daniel Wengelin wrote to Team-Ada:

> I am contemplating transitioning a system in Ada83 to Ada95. Our current
> implementation uses a programming environment that supports "export sets"
> from components, i.e. the ability to define for a given software component
> (CSC, say 10-50 kSLOC) the package specifikations that are allowed to be
> "with"ed from another component.
>
> In Ada95, this ability was added to the language itself, using visibility
> of child packages as the means to define the export set of a component.

I read this idea with great interest. All the presentations/discussions
on child packages that I have heard seem to approach the feature in a
top-down fashion: for example, you've already got an existing package
that you want to extend or enhance, but would also like to leave it
intact (because it's been shipped to customers, or you don't want the
recompilation impact, or whatever); so Ada95 lets you attach child
packages and thus achieve both goals. The Message: child packages are
for extensibility (although the Ada95 Rationale also discusses sharing
of private types as another primary use).

But the above idea fascinates me because it suggests an additional/new
bottom-up applicability: for example, you've already got an existing
collection of packages (logically a CSC) of which only a specific few
are intended as the CSC interface; but as they stand, there's nothing in
the language to prevent a client from bypassing the CSC interface and
WITHing disallowed internal specs -- either ignorantly or intentionally
(such as for performance reasons). To enforce the intended design, we
need to have a vigilant architect or external tool/environment support
("export sets"). Happily, the above suggests that the language can
address the issue after all: create a "super-package" or "root" that
subsumes the CSC interface packages as its children. As Tucker Taft so
nicely explained it:

> it can be done
> pretty straightforwardly.  The fundamental rules are that
> a private child cannot be "with"ed outside the "subsystem"
> rooted at its parent, and cannot be "with"ed by the spec of
> any unit visible to "outsiders."
>
> A "subsystem" is a tree of library units headed by some particular
> library unit.
>
> Another way of looking at it is that a subsystem can be divided
> into two parts: the part visible outside the subsystem (the "interface"
> to the subsystem), and the part visible only inside the subsystem
> (the "implementation" of the subsystem).  The interface consists of
> the specs of the root of the subsystem and its public children,
> grandchildren, etc.  The implementation consists of the
> specs of the private children/grandchildren, etc, plus all the bodies.
> Something outside the subsystem, or something in the interface of the
> subsystem, may not "with" something in the implementation.

Regarding the "export set" alternative, Steven Deller wrote:

> Only if there is ONE top level package would Tucker's solution apply.  In
> most cases I have seen, this is rarely the case.
>
> Now one could consider creating a super-package containing all the parent
> packages, but that would change all points of usage -- something I would not
> think desirable.

Any existing points of usage would indeed be impacted (as would the new
child packages themselves) -- future points would not, by definition.
The original posting asked whether it was "possible to transform the
Ada83", so immutability of existing code is not a constraint here. Where
it is a constraint, then the "export set" solution does the job well;
but if we are willing to transform (dare I say "refactor"?) the code,
the result is *extremely* desirable: language-based enforcement of the
CSC-level architecture! ... and the actual editing is relatively minor.

> It is my personal feeling that Rational's subsystems addresses a different
> control issue than Ada 95's parent/child package system.  I would suggest
> that Ada 95 child/parent packaging be used for encapsulation and hiding of
> implementation details for a parent package that needs subpackages specific
> to its implementation.

This is the top-down extensibility usage discussed above; but the
insight here is that child packages can also be applied in a bottom-up
fashion to address the very real issue of maintaining architectural
integrity -- and so can Rational's subsystems and their "export sets".

> Conversely, Rational's export control mechanism is appropriate for
> controlling exports within a subsystem of communicating "peer" packages in
> which only some of the communications should come from outside the
> subsystem.

Of course, that peer relationship would be preserved among the newly
subsumed children as well.

> Thus I would think there would be some cases in your application where Ada
> 95's parent/child packaging would be appropriate to maintaining the
> integrity of your system, and some cases where Rational's subsystem export
> controls would benefit your system integrity.

I don't think the original goal was to duplicate Rational's "export set"
capability: clearly, the two approaches will manifest differences. For
the problem at hand, both approaches will serve admirably well; ... but
for the sake of clarity, it might be worth articulating just what some
of these differences are (at the risk of changing the subject -- not my
intent! -- but do correct me if I'm mistaken).

* A given Rational subsystem can support *multiple* independent "export
sets", that is, the same collection of packages (of a CSC) can be viewed
(WITHed) differently by different clients. This nicely supports CSC
variants, such as for different target platforms/domains. In contrast,
the equivalent with bottom-up child packages (as discussed) would be to
have interchangeable "roots" (one per variant), each of which could
share many/all of the children -- prohibited by Ada's strict hierarchy.
(Of course, Ada can deal with variants by other/better means.)

* On the other hand, Rational's subsystems cannot be nested (at least in
current implementations). The bottom-up child package approach, however,
would easily and directly support nested CSCs.

> Forcing either mechanism to do the work of the other may work against any
> improvement of system integrity -- essentially make work for no or negative
> benefits.

Correct! And bottom-up child packages as a refactoring strategy for
language-based architectural enforcement is an idea that should be made
more widely known, IMHO :-)

--

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