Hi John, > But with TLM you also need non-blocking support (in > addition to blocking) on both ends of the channels. > And, you need "peek" ability in addition to basic > read/write ability. Ok, so TLM needs more from the interface than pipes can currently provide. Just to clarify, since you are promoting both interfaces, I assume you have gone through the exercise of seeing if the pipes could be implemented on top of your new TLM interface as an application layer solution. My question is simple: can it and if no, why not? If the answer is no I'd like that to be part of your motivation for keeping the pipes next to the TLM interface. > I thought about adding this somehow to pipes but I think > it makes them even more complicated in terms of use model > and implementation model and it would complicate our > committee discussions even more - something we cannot > really afford at the rate we've been going. Well, the devils advocate could argue that adding another API to the proposal is in itself something that could complicate our discussions ;-) Note, I am interested in learnign more about your proposal and exploring it. I am just concerned that we make 100% sure we are adding something that will be complimentary to what we already have and useful as well. > Actually it can - and so can pipes for that matter. But, just > as for example the "iostreams" is an ANSI standard library of C++ > so should pipes and TLM fifos be a standard library of SCE-MI 2. > This way, everyone implements and uses the library the same way. The TLM API is already defined. So what you are proposing is a lower level SCE-MI 2 API on top of which TLM FIFOs can be implemented, correct? > I won't say it is sudden. I'm just getting the feeling that > at the rate of progress in our discussions, SCE-MI 2 > may be obsolete and inadequate by the time it is out because > transaction verification will be more aligned with the TLM > standard. I think it behooves us to make sure that SCE-MI 2 > dovetails well with other emerging standards. By incorporating > it now, we extend the time window of its usefulness without > having to wait for SCE-MI 3 and thus lag the industry even > more. I agree with this as long as adding more features to `catch up' is not in the end going to slow us down even more. Per -- Per Bojsen Email: <bojsen@zaiqtech.com> Zaiq Technologies, Inc. WWW: http://www.zaiqtech.com 78 Dragon Ct. Tel: 781 721 8229 Woburn, MA 01801 Fax: 781 932 7488Received on Wed Feb 1 14:02:58 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 01 2006 - 14:03:07 PST