Usenet 1994 January/usenetsourcesnewsgroupsinfomagicjanuary1994.iso/sources/std_unix/v20/repdir/1003.5

Internet Message Format | 1990-08-02 | 10KB

From [e-mail]  Fri Jun 22 20:43:01 1990
Received: from cs.utexas.edu by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
    id AA17291; Fri, 22 Jun 90 20:43:01 -0400
Posted-Date: 22 Jun 90 19:22:41 GMT
Received: by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.63)
    id AA22512; Fri, 22 Jun 90 19:42:51 -0500
Received: by longway.tic.com (4.22/tic.1.2)
    id AA22387; Fri, 22 Jun 90 16:48:19 cdt
From: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Standards Update, IEEE 1003.5: Ada bindings
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: 22 Jun 90 19:22:41 GMT
Apparently-To: [e-mail]

From:  <[e-mail]>


           An Update on UNIX*-Related Standards Activities

                              June 1990

                 USENIX Standards Watchdog Committee

                   Jeffrey S. Haemer, Report Editor

IEEE 1003.5: Ada bindings

Jayne Baker <[e-mail]> reports on the April 23-27 meeting
in Salt Lake City, UT:

Overview

The Utah meeting was the group's first since our October meeting in
Brussels.  In the interim, we had completed a mock ballot of Draft
4.0.  Jim Lonjers of Unisys, one of our two co-chairs, managed the
effort.  The document was mailed out to reviewers on December 1, 1989
and comments were due January 19, 1990.  Although only 16% of the
ballots were returned, the high quality of the comments received made
the mock ballot a success.  Ted Baker, of Florida State University,
hosted a special meeting in Tallahassee, March 19 - 23, to resolve
issues and comments; the result was draft 4.1.  We did not attend the
January, New Orleans meeting because balloters lacked sufficient time
to review and return comments prior to the meeting, though some
members came to attend other groups' meetings.

Our main goal in Utah was to prepare the Ada Language Binding Document
for IEEE and ISO Ballot.  We addressed the few, unresolved technical
issues from mock ballot; read draft 4.1 cover-to-cover, for accuracy
(of text and Ada code), content, and consistency; established a plan
for addressing the ISO formatting issues; adopted an optimistic
schedule for IEEE and ISO ballots; and tried to establish a position
on threads.

Unresolved Technical Issues from Mock Ballot

Most unresolved technical issues from the mock ballot were trivial,
and quickly resolved.  They included the details of iterations (e.g.,
through a directory), string lower bounds with respect to a string
returned by a function, the behavior of a file that is opened non-
blocking when the I/O operation cannot complete, static initialization
versus ``easy implementation'' of constants, and Text I/O page
terminators.

__________

  * UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T in the U.S. and other
    countries.

June 1990 Standards Update                   IEEE 1003.5: Ada bindings


                - 2 -

The most detailed discussion involved whether or not files should be
closed on an Exec.  The Ada binding provides a Start_Process function,
which is a primitive that safely creates a new process.  In the face
of Ada tasking, Fork and Exec are unsafe and cannot be used to
accomplish the results of a Start_Process call.  Once one of these
unsafe primitives is issued, an application program is no longer under
the control of the Ada run time system; the operating system is
involved.  Therefore, the integrity of the child process is
jeopardized, and the state of the process's I/O (i.e., which files are
open/closed) is not guaranteed.  Application programs that must be
safe with Ada tasking and must have files closed and buffers flushed,
should call Start_Process to create a new process.

Global Issues Effecting the Document

We solved several global, editorial issues.  We agreed to use a terse
wording style except where a more lengthy, explanatory style is needed
for clarity.  We accepted the current packaging of the Ada code
(multiple packages) and the non-Ada-Language-Reference-Manual coding
style.  Chapter authors were assigned action items to complete their
respective references and rationale sections.

We spent a large portion of the meeting going through the document,
chapter-by-chapter, noting very specific changes.  Changes recorded in
a ``master red-lined'' copy were forwarded to appropriate chapter
authors at the close of the meeting.  These changes will be made
before the June delivery of the document to WG 15.

ISO Format Issues

We need to make several minor modifications, additions, and deletions
before the June  WG 15 meeting, to put the document in ISO standard
format.  After the March, Tallahassee meeting, Jim Moore, of IBM,
investigated the possibility of hiring a consulting technical editor
to do this work.  IBM volunteered to fund this effort at a level
sufficient to translate the document into ISO format, maintain that
format, and make one major edit and two to three minor editorial
revisions.  We accepted IBM's offer, and hired Hal Jespersen.

Threads Issues

As in New Orleans, several group members met with P1003.4 for threads
discussions.  Most group members feel we should establish a position
on threads, but we remain firmly divided on what it should be.
Several members believe the currently defined primitives (i.e., the
most basic system functions) are insufficient, and think that any
thread model and primitives proposed should be sufficient to support
Ada tasking, and implement an Ada Run-Time.  In contrast, at least one
group member believes we are unrealistic to require a threads proposal
in C to meet Ada requirements --  we should, instead, require that C
and Ada be able to play together in some reasonable fashion, and have

June 1990 Standards Update                   IEEE 1003.5: Ada bindings


                - 3 -

a fair understanding of how it will be accomplished.  We decided to
admit our dissension to P1003.4.  Interested P1003.5 members are
acting as liaisons to represent their own views, but these liaisons do
not represent any consolidated P1003.5. view.

The IEEE and ISO ballots

Steve Deller, our chair, asked the Sponsor's Executive Committee (SEC)
to approve our entry into the IEEE ballot process.  Jim Isaak, SEC
Chair, met with us early in the week to discuss the IEEE and ISO
ballot processes and help us establish a schedule to reach IEEE and
ISO ballots simultaneously.  Since the ballot process seems to be of
general interest, here is a brief overview.

A hierarchy of organizations is responsible for producing
international operating-system standards and managing the ISO ballot
process.  Two independent, international standards organizations, the
International Standards Organization (ISO) and the International
Electrotechnical Committee (IEC), sit on top.  Joint Technical
Committee 1 (JTC 1), a combined effort of these two organizations
designed to coordinate their efforts in areas of overlap, is at the
second level; Subcommittee 22 (SC 22), Languages, at the third; and
Working Group 15 (WG 15), Portable Operating Systems for Computer
Environments, at the fourth.  National organizations, such as the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI), manage ISO balloting
within each country.  Each participating country has one or more
representatives in WG 15.  The United States has a Technical Advisory
Group (TAG), which meets with and advises the United States' WG 15
representatives on the US's position on important issues.

This bureaucracy requires quite a bit of coordination and planning to
coordinate IEEE and ISO ballots.  Most documents require about one
year to complete the IEEE ballot cycle.  Historically, POSIX documents
have begun with the IEEE ballot process; three to four months later,
either the original draft, or a newer version incorporating IEEE
-ballot-process comments, enters the ISO process, and is delivered to
both WG 15 and SC 22 for approval.  Typically, the IEEE ballot is held
open until all comments from both IEEE and ISO processes are received,
reviewed, and incorporated.  The result is returned to both the IEEE
and ISO ballot groups for their approval.  If the IEEE comments are
substantive, they enter into the ISO process by the submission of a
United States position.  For example, P1003.1a is the U.S. position on
P1003.1..

Our group also initiated formation of a formal ballot group --  is the
group that will actually vote on the current draft.  We will deliver
Draft 5.0, in ISO format, to WG 15 at the Ada Europe meeting this
June.  Draft 6.0 will go to IEEE ballot on August 6.  If we receive
the required 75% response by September 21, the ballot will close
immediately; if not, we must reconsider the ballot group membership,
and revise our schedule. In early October, draft 6.0 will be delivered

June 1990 Standards Update                   IEEE 1003.5: Ada bindings


                - 4 -

to SC22.  At the October meeting, in Seattle, we will resolve the IEEE
ballot comments and produce Draft 7.0, which will enter the ISO Ballot
process.  At the January '91, New Orleans Meeting, we will determine
whether a second IEEE Ballot is needed.  Any changes to Draft 7.0
resulting from a second IEEE Ballot will be entered into the ISO
process through a pro forma objection.  There are no guarantees, but
P1003.5 could reach Draft International Standard (DIS) status by late
second quarter of 1991.

Conclusion

The April '90/Salt Lake City Meeting was a success.  We addressed the
issues we hoped to address and attained our goal for the meeting.  We
also established a schedule for reaching IEEE and ISO ballot; although
this schedule is optimistic, we think we can meet it.

June 1990 Standards Update                   IEEE 1003.5: Ada bindings


Volume-Number: Volume 20, Number 38