this is a minor issue, but it does affect SCE-MI implementation.  The
SceMi::BindMessageInPort() and SceMi::BindMessageOutPort() methods each
take a binding argument that is a pointer to a struct the user has
defined.  Is the implementation required to copy the contents of this
struct (if the pointer is not NULL) internally?  The answer to this
question affects what the application can do with the struct after
calling one of these methods.  If the answer is yes, the application can
do whatever it wants with the struct.  If the answer is no, then the
application must keep the struct around until Shutdown() time.  Furthermore,
is must potentially keep track of multiple of these structs (in the worst
case one per port if none of them can be shared).  Also, if the answer
is no, this raises several other questions such as will the application
be allowed to change the fields of the binding structs while the emulation
is running.

My take on these is that the implementation should be required to copy
the contents of the binding argument.  This places the least constraints
on the application and avoids some potentially nasty problems if the
application accidentally changed one or more fields of the struct while
the emulation is running.  If it actually wants to change these fields
it can use the ReplaceBinding() method.

If the committee agrees, I propose we add a sentence to the description
of each of the BindMessage(In|Out)Port() methods that states that the
implementation is required to copy the contents of the binding struct
and the application is free to discard of the struct after the call.

Per

========================================================================

In my opinion the implementation must not be able to assume
that the information will remain persistent - therefore it should
copy.

Once the call is made the application should be free to destroy
the info.

In many of our examples we do just that. The information passed
to the ::Bind??Port calls is stored in an automatic variable which
subsequently goes out of scope once the port initializaion ops
complete.

John S

==========================================================================

I just wanted to add to issue IM20 that it applies to the
ReplaceBinding() methods as well as BindMessage(In|Out)Port().

I propose to add this text to the description of each of these
four methods (replace <method> with the actual method name),
Sections 5.3.3.4, 5.3.3.5, 5.3.6.2, 5.3.7.2:

  The implementation shall copy the contents of the object pointed
  to by the binding argument to an internal, implementation specific
  location.

  NOTE--The application is free to deallocate and/or modify the
  binding object at any time after calling <method>.  Since the
  binding object is copied, the binding itself will not change
  as a result of this.

I have some typographical trouble with where exactly to put this
text in each of the sections.  If we put it after the description
of the method arguments it may look like it applies to the last
argument.  If we put it before it does not flow nicely with the
existing text.  Perhaps we can add a subsection after the argument
descriptions?  Or is it better to integrate the above in the
general description of the method before the argument descriptions?
Off hand, that sounds more reasonable to me.

Per