Toward a 1.0 Environment

What should 1.0 env be? (note implicit assumption that spec-only is not enough)
We need to start defining what's in, what's out, and why.

Release date
1.1 Pre-Scidac2
1.2 During Scidac2

Binding
2.1 Babel 1.0
2.2 Neo,Classic,Lite

Specification Features

3.1 Multiplexed uses ports
3.2 Fault tolerance
3.3 ParameterPort
3.4 GuiBuilderService
3.5 Event-service
3.6 Framework-particular event definition
3.7 Rule-processing for events service
3.8 ComponentRegistry
3.9 CreationService
3.10 MxN (PCI?)
3.11 FrameAccess? (better support for creating containers of component assemblies).

Conformance Testing Suite
3.99 Needed

Supported reference implementation(s)

4.1 SPMD/MPMD library-style components (ccaffeine)
4.2 Distributed (?)
4.3 All-in-one
4.4 Windows posix
4.5 Windows native
4.6 Binary distributions
4.7 RMI-over-mpi
4.8 Performant RMI

Supported components

5.1 MPI
5.2 ParameterPortFactory
5.3 GUI
5.4 Parallel-to-distributed adaptor

Supported tools

6.1 V 0.1 Eclipse/Babel/Cca plugin(s) release bundle
6.2 V 1.0 Proxy generators (performance, log-debug)
6.3 Chasm
6.4 Generating static executables

Unsupported
move from above items and add more here.

• Write requirements document for CCA 1.0 by end of SciDAC1
  • 1.0 should include essential features to be a good general-purpose component architecture. Features not essential in this respect can be added later.
• Spec needs to be stratified into "core" and "optional" features
  • Some features should remain optional to maintain the simplicity of implementation for those who don't need the whole kitchen sink. But if they're implemented, we specify interface.
  • Ben's section 5 "Supported Components" should probably be optional standards
• Need requirements for both the specification itself and the surrounding framework/environment
• Need to provide users with a matrix of conformance tests and CCA implementations
• Need to decide requirements for "reference" implementation
  • Maybe spec+tests are enough to define CCA 1.0. Drop idea of "reference" implementation in favor of just having a bunch of implementations, which implement some or all of the CCA spec (see matrix, above).
  • Is HPC-only okay for reference?
  • What about distributed?
  • Does Ccaffeine have too much legacy baggage to be a good reference implementation
  • From-scratch cleanroom Babel-based reimplementation? Good idea, but perhaps expensive? Maybe start from Ben's Java alternative framework, convert to Babel & C?