Sent From: [log in to unmask]


Remember these thoughts for next year. It would be a good time to begin discussions on updating the IEEE standard. I realize it will be 2005 before it is due, but we should begin deliberations before the renewal vote. As for adding a non-standard function call, I do not think there is a tick() function in the 1.3 specification. A de facto standard would be better than using several different approaches. The advantage of the RID file parameter is that it is easy to change. Presumably, an application will ignore RID file parameters they cannot use. Emmet Beeker AT&T 1900 Gallows Road, Vienna, VA 22182 [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: Barclay, Nathan [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 4:45 PM To: SISO - Run-Time Infrastructure and Communications Forum Subject: RE: Creating and Destroying Federations I agree that the RID file parameter idea is a lot cleaner than an InitializeRTI type call. It solves the problem of changing the semantics of the Create call without creating any other obvious problems in the process. Nathan Barclay -----Original Message----- From: Keith Snively [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 3:28 PM To: SISO - Run-Time Infrastructure and Communications Forum Subject: Re: Creating and Destroying Federations At Friday 04:16 PM 7/19/2002, you wrote: >``Barclay, Nathan`` wrote: > > > In regard to the idea of a special ``InitializeRTI* type call, I agree that > > adding calls that would have to be taken out in switching to a > different RTI > > is far from ideal. But at least if the RTI offered that option, developers > > could decide for themselves which poison is worse - designing a federate > > that requires changing one line to run with a different RTI or designing a > > federate that has to behave differently from how they want because the RTI > > doesn`t give them a choice. Consider the following: > >I think a third option would give us the best of both worlds: We can >provide an optional fedFileNameForLightweightMode RID parameter to let >you set the FED file name for lightweight mode. That way, you can write >the code the way you want (without calling createFederationExecution), >and it will work in both modes without having to conditionally compile. >When you switch to lightweight mode, the RTI will automatically use the >FED file indicated in the RID. I kinda like this scheme, and I think >I`ll put it on our to do list. Yes, I agree that sounds like the best option. Perhaps NG and MAK could use the same RID parameter name ; ). Another problem with adding the ``InitializeRTI`` method is it changes the RTI header files and would prevent an RTI from being verified. These header files are unfortunately set in stone, rather than simply requiring compile-time compatibility. Keith Snively Dynamic Animation Systems http://www.d-a-s.com SAIC:(703)333-5432, DAS:(703)503-0500 FAX:(703)425-2204



To unsubscribe from the Z-ARCHIVE-SIW-CFI list, click the following link:
https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=Z-ARCHIVE-SIW-CFI