Re: Comments on requirements

Subject: Re: Comments on requirements
From: Bassam Tabbara (bassam@novas.com)
Date: Tue Aug 20 2002 - 13:17:21 PDT

Kevin Cameron x3251 wrote:
[...]
> > > Also, does anyone want to be able to call tasks (in interfaces) directly and
> > > setup call-backs from interfaces? (this has a bearing on EC proposals)
> >
> > Kevin, you are talking of SV interfaces ? Why what's the restriction now
> > ? I thought you could already call tasks in interfaces (instances). What
> > are the alternatives/issues ? Thx!
>
> Yep, SV interface tasks direct from C/C++. Folks keep pushing interfaces as
> the logical point to cross language boundaries, but you can only really do
> that if you can call the interface tasks direct from the foreign language.

Ok, thx, so you are talking about -calling interface tasks from the
foreign language (application)-. I think there is a more basic question
here, do we want to allow calling (module/interface) from foreign
language to begin with (or the DFLI application routines are purely
slave and the "interface" shell (for DFLI app.) would live on the SV
side, and communicate with other interfaces...) ... Several statements
in the reqs (Andrezj, Joao, and email feedback discussion) saying DFLI
is slave, we should elaborate on/discuss further this point...
 
> It's cleaner to do it in C++ because you can declare a class equivalent of
> the interface and class methods to match the tasks, but I'm sure we can
> come up with a name mangling algorithm to do it from C if necessary.

-Bassam. 

-- 
Dr. Bassam Tabbara
Technical Manager, R&D

Novas Software, Inc.
bassam@novas.com
(408) 467-7893

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Aug 20 2002 - 13:19:30 PDT