What boggles my mind here is adding real-time requirements in the same context of Jini. While you may have real-time threads, once you touch the network your real-time QoS goes out the window. You may be able to guarantee that the amount of time it takes to perform an operation will be done within a bounded time, but you will not be able to guarantee (in a real-time context) that the result of that operation will be transmitted over the media to a requesting client.
What I'd like to find out from Michael here is what exactly are the RT requirements for River? Service Infrastructure (JoinManager and the like...) Services (Reggie, Mercury, Outrigger, etc...) Other? On Dec 2, 2010, at 104AM, MICHAEL MCGRADY wrote: > We do this now with Java 1.5, Greg. Java RT 2.1 (64 bit) is compatible with > Java 1.5. http://preview.tinyurl.com/2bpjqfh There would be no other test > than works-with-Java-1.5. The simple answer is that if River does not call > real-time threads and uses Java 1.5 there is no issue. There are other > things that impact real-time but we can cover those. > > MG > > On Dec 1, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Greg Trasuk wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 23:33, Mike McGrady wrote: >>> Like I said, Java 1.6 is incompatible with Java RTS and that os very >>> serious in my neighborhood. We do QoS with Java RTS. >>> >> >> That's certainly an interesting comment... I'm curious though: I haven't >> looked at RT Java for several years, but I recall that the first pass >> allowed plain Java (i.e. non-real-time) to be executed. Would River >> components need some other evaluation or testing to be accepted as >> "real-time" (which I doubt would be an easy task), or would you just be >> looking for compatibility with the run-time environment, but without >> real-time guarantees? >> >> Also, what would be the impact if the RT system called services that >> were resident in a non-RT virtual machine? Specifically, would the >> registrar and/or JavaSpaces implementation need to be hosted in a Java >> RTS virtual machine? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Greg. >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> Michael McGrady >>> Principal investigator AF081_028 SBIR >>> Chief Architect >>> Topia Technology, Inc >>> Work 1.253.572.9712 >>> Cel 1.253.720.3365 >>> >>> On Dec 1, 2010, at 5:03 PM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/1/2010 4:53 PM, Dennis Reedy wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> Some of the discussion has referenced Java CDC on BlueRay. Should >>>>> these platforms have an overriding influence on whether River moves >>>>> forward and adopts 1.6 as a baseline? I'm not so sure at this point. >>>> >>>> Is the relevant Java dialect identical to 1.4? If not, we would need a >>>> separate project to make portions of River run on it. >>>> >>>> Patricia >> -- >> Greg Trasuk, President >> StratusCom Manufacturing Systems Inc. - We use information technology to >> solve business problems on your plant floor. >> http://stratuscom.com >> > > Michael McGrady > Chief Architect > Topia Technology, Inc. > Cel 1.253.720.3365 > Work 1.253.572.9712 extension 2037 > mmcgr...@topiatechnology.com > > >
