[cgl_discussion] Re: [OCF]draft 0.8 of the SAF Application Interface specification
Frederic.Herrmann at sun.com
Wed Jan 8 19:19:39 PST 2003
mailman-lists.community.tummy.com-ocf at lists.community.tummy.com
>From: David Brower <David.Brower at oracle.com>
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.1)
>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>To: ocf at lists.community.tummy.com
>Subject: Re: [cgl_discussion] Re: [OCF]draft 0.8 of the SAF Application
>X-BeenThere: ocf at lists.community.tummy.com
<mailto:ocf-request at lists.community.tummy.com?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Id: Open Clustering Framework main list
>List-Post: <mailto:ocf at lists.community.tummy.com>
>List-Help: <mailto:ocf-request at lists.community.tummy.com?subject=help>
<mailto:ocf-request at lists.community.tummy.com?subject=subscribe>
>Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 11:18:10 -0800
>>Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:27:49 +0100 (MET)
>>From: Dave Penkler - Sun Microsystems <Dave.Penkler at sun.com>
>>Subject: Re: [cgl_discussion] Re: [OCF]draft 0.8 of the SAF Application
>>To: wookie at osdl.org, cgl_discussion at osdl.org, mika at osdl.org
>>Cc: ocf at lists.community.tummy.com, Wolfram.Weyer at fci.com,
>> Timo.Jokiaho at nokia.com, Henry.Turko at nokia.com, jkj at uk.ibm.com,
>> Dave.Penkler at sun.com, Frederic.Herrmann at sun.com
>>Reply-To: ocf at lists.community.tummy.com
>>Just to add a small clarification to MiKu's observation: The spec uses
>>calls in the examples but it does not require the underlying OS to be
>>compliant. Small footprint / RT implementations of the SAF middleware may
>>find POSIX compliance of the OS too onerous.
>Au contraire, it assumes POSIX-like semantics every place it uses a
>file descriptor, and assumes the presence of something like select or
In the SAF application spec, an opaque type (SaSelectionObject) is returned
to the application. This may be a file desc on a Posix system or something
else on other systems. There is no assumption on select or poll explicitly
by the spec but only an assumption that the application has a way to wait
on the selection object returned previously.
It is true that we didn't look at many OSes such as OS/390 to make sure
that there is a way to map the abstract type on something reasonable but
someone in our group checked that this could be easily mapped on NT
(without using the POSIX emulation).
>An OS agnostic approach would have opaque types that could be either
>integers or handles, and wait mechanisms that encapsulated those types;
>and encapsulated the lifecycle management of their creation and
I think we're in agreement here.
>As it stands, it is about as POSIX specific as the OCF drafts, with
>additional complication and embelleshment.
I would appreciate if you could point out the parts which are unnecessary
complicated so that we can give it a try at simplifying them.
> I think OCF could align with a subset
>of the SAF stuff easily. I can't see SAF as meeting the 'agnostic'
>Using the perrenial worst case example, it would probably be a pain to
>make that API work on OS/390 without the POSIX emulation layer
>that many don't like to use.
I'm not familiar with OS/390 and I would appreciate if you could point out
the parts of the spec which you think would be hard to implement on OS/390.
>OCF mailing list
>OCF at lists.community.tummy.com
More information about the cgl_discussion