I think first of all we need to make sure that we use the same term (implementation vs application) in all the definitions and ensure that it is properly defined.
Second, the "custom protocol compliant" needs refinement as it is perfectly allowable to derive new sockets from the standard socket classes, and the current wording seems to exclude that possibility. In fact, derived socket types should be allowable for all of these compliance categories.
Tor
--- Tor Jeremiassen, Ph.D. Simulation and Modeling CTO SDO Foundational Tools Texas Instruments Ph: 281 274 3483 P.O. Box 1443, MS 730 Fax: 281 274 2703 Houston, TX 77251-1443 Email: tor@ti.com<mailto:tor@ti.com> ________________________________ From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:35 PM To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org Subject: TLM-2.0 compliance All Back along we started a discussion on whether P1666 should make any statements concerning TLM-2.0 compliance. The protogonists were Stuart, Hiroshi Imai, and myself. We reached the conclusion that we wanted to define three terms explicitly in the 1666 LRM: Informally, "A TLM-2.0 compliant implementation" = An implementation that implements everything in the 1666 LRM including the TLM-2.0 interoperability layer and the TLM-2.0 utilities "TLM-2.0 base protocol compliant" = An application that obeys all the rules of the base protocol as spelled out in the 1666 LRM "TLM-2.0 custom protocol compliant" = An application that uses the standard initiator and target sockets specialized with a user-defined protocol traits class, but is not obliged to obey any of the base protocol rules (though recommended to follow the rules of the base protocol as far as possible) Does this group wish to continue this discussion and add such term to the LRM? Thanks, John A -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue Oct 5 03:23:23 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 05 2010 - 03:23:24 PDT