Sent From: [log in to unmask]

It is not something I made it out to be. It is a fact. I do not care how many different versions there can be. I guess for most of the users, all they care is that they can have a version to stick with. Unfortunately the HLA development has not been very consistent. If each of the federate developers uses one version, there will never be any standard. It will be a disaster if years later there come up a standard and everybody have to redo their federates. The HLA compliance mandate deadline is coming fast. Zhian Li ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Truth in Advertising Author: <[log in to unmask]> at smtplink-eid Date: 5/1/98 1:27 PM I don't believe that this is as bad as you make it out to be. The Object Management Group which has been responsible for successfully developing distributed computing standards under the CORBA environment initially used the same approach. The interfaces and functionality between the applications and the ORB software were standardized, but ORBs from different vendors were not interoperable. Once they gained experience with different ORB implementations, they went through a process to standardize on the elements that would make different ORBs interoperate. I believe that the RTI is in the same situation. Initially standardizing on the interface and functionality at the federate/RTI layer, before trying to tackle any standardization on the communications between RTIs from different vendors. As someone who is developing one of the RTI implementations, I think it is premature to try to standardize on the over-the-wire communication protocols. It may be even premature to be able to effectively discuss its merits without more insight into optimum communication strategies under diverse operating conditions (this really needs to be done by experimentation). They only issue is that until RTI interoperability issues are resolved *instances* of federation executions will need to use the same RTI (or RTIs that are interoperable). These same federates will be able to easily switch between vendor A and vendor B (provided that RTI A and RTI B are compliant with the Interface Specification) between executions. Steve At 11:26 AM 5/1/98 -0600, Zhian Li wrote: > > Fellows, > > This is a very good and important point. I agree with this opinion > completely. I just had some lengthy email exchanges with the HLA > compliance testing group. It seemed that RTI 1.3 is incompatable to older > versions and RTI 2.0 will not be compatable with 1.3. This becomes a > bizzare situation. All models are HLA compliant. But models are still > not interoperable. Then HLA will not be able to achieve anything. Why do > we all bother? Hope the SAC will do something. > --------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Bachinsky voice: 703-333-5428 SAIC fax: 703-354-5398 5400 Shawnee Road, Suite 110 pager: 888-347-1355 Alexandria, VA 22312 [log in to unmask] email: [log in to unmask] ---------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from the Z-ARCHIVE-SIW-CFI list, click the following link: