Print

Print


Re: Truth in Advertising SiteManager SISO SiteManager <a href="/index.htm?LOGON=A3%3Dind9805%26L%3DZ-ARCHIVE-SIW-CFI%26E%3Dquoted-printable%26P%3D44514%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3DUTF-8%26XSS%3D3%26header%3D1" target="_parent" >[log in to unmask]</a>
Sent From: [log in to unmask]


[Response to Paul <[log in to unmask]>] As long as we're just talking about FOM changes from one HLA version to the next, I think you're exaggerating the problem. I wish we had a way to maintain backward compatibility with previous versions of HLA without either passing up opportunities to improve it or cluttering it up with several different versions of the same thing, but to some extent, incompatibility is the price of improvement. On the more general topic, I do like the idea of having a standard for interoperable communication and coordination that all RTI's have to (or are very strongly encouraged to) support, just so long as RTI's aren't prohibited from also offering whatever other kinds of communication and coordination approaches they want to (within the bounds of the interface specification, of course). That way, federation designers could decide for themselves whether a proprietary protocol offers enough advantages to justify switching all the different federates over to it. There might even be a series of standards as better approaches are developed, with older standards declared obsolete when there is no longer enough interest to justify forcing RTI developers to expend resources to support them. Nathan A. Barclay Teledyne Brown Engineering [log in to unmask] ------------------------------ > Let me add that FOM development may be partially dependent upon > the RTI capability (Just as Randy stated, " you [might] design your > FOM to exploit the implementation details of your RTI") . You'll have > to know what RTI you're developing/modifying your FOM to (since > they may not all be compatable), If this occurs, then we're introducing > the necessity of "lifecycle engineering" of FOMs. Woe! Not a > pleasant thought, especially if we're having to maintain and update > Reference FOMs for every new "baseline" RTI that comes out. I > can hear it now, "Which RTI baseline version does your RPR FOM > support?" Multiplicity without equalness! Now, that could be bad! - Paul [[log in to unmask]]



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