TOPIC:

Hi everybody,

My name is David, from Metodos y Tecnologia (MTP).



Comparing the Java and ANSI-C mapping for the TriComponenIdType, we have
found the following:



Java

public interface TriComponentId {

public String getComponentId();

public String getComponentName();

public String getComponentTypeName();

public TriPortIdList getPortList();

public boolean equals(TriComponentId port);

}



ANSI-C

typedef struct TriComponentId {

BinaryString compInst;

String compName;

QualifiedName compType;

} TriComponentId;



According to the Java mapping, the TriComponentIdType should have a
reference to the componentÂ’s port list.

According to the ANSI-C mapping, we donÂ’t have this information.



The point is that we are implementing C++ TCI/TRI interfaces, so we are
getting the Java mapping (OO) as reference for the C++ class methods and the
ANSI-C mapping as reference for the C++ class attributes/types. In the case
of the TriComponentId we have to choose between implement the
“getPortList()” method (adding a TriPortIdListType reference in the class)
or donÂ’t implement it (following the information from the ANSI-C).



By the way, implementing the TriComponentIdType following the Java mapping
(reference to TriPortIdListType) leads to a circular reference (always hard
to manage):



TriComponentIdType --> TriPortIdListType --> TriPortIdType -->
TriComponentIdType



We think the best solution to break this loop is removing the reference to
the TriPortIdListType from the TriComponentIdType (as ANSI-C mapping
propose), because the TriPortIdType --> TriComponentIdType relationship is a
must for the triCommunication interface in order to map TSI ports and
components.



Comments are welcome!



Regards,

---

David Díaz Rodríguez

Computer Engineer

Senior SW Development Consultant



Tel.: (+34) 91 353 15 64 (Ext. 120)

Fax: (+34) 91 359 61 79

Métodos y Tecnología (MTP)

Paseo de la Castellana, 182 10º

28046 - Madrid, Spain

www.mtp.es