[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference azur::mcc

Title:DECmcc user notes file. Does not replace IPMT.
Notice:Use IPMT for problems. Newsletter location in note 6187
Moderator:TAEC::BEROUD
Created:Mon Aug 21 1989
Last Modified:Wed Jun 04 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:6497
Total number of notes:27359

25.0. "Does MCC interface directly to DDM" by CLUSTA::TAMER () Wed Oct 25 1989 17:08

    Hi,
    
    Does MCC interface directly to DDM (DECnet Director Module) ?
    
    i.e., is DDM callable from MCC ? 
    
    Thanks,
    
    Phil 
    
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
25.1INFO - using our own access routinesGOSTE::CALLANDERThu Oct 26 1989 18:1417
MCC's Phase V AM does not interface with DDM.

This is for efficiency reason. If we did go that route
we would be translating ILV into Itemlist and then Item list 
into CMIP-ASN1. Instead we are going directly from ILV to CMIP_ASN1.

We are writing our own access routines.

DDM is certainly callable from MCC. If you want to call it synchronously,
it will hang until the request is satisfied. This is not acceptable
in the thread environment. If you want to call DDM asynchronously, you
will have to develop monitors around the call.

Hope I answered the question.

Arun.
    
25.2wheel reinventionMOSAIC::PRAETORIUSR4T P8SMon Nov 13 1989 15:068
     errr, ummmm, pardon me, but could I ask why one group decided to use an
ILV representation of data for its interface and the other selected item lists?
Are there really fundamental differences between the two that cause one to be
much better for the AM interface and the other better for the DDM interface?

								curious,

								    Robt. P.
25.3A few additional thoughtsKEEL::SAVAGEPeter SavageTue Nov 14 1989 09:4039
        
    I can't speak for the other group (DECnet phase V), however I can
    speak for MCC and have a few clarifying thoughts.
    
    The debate of self describing data vs item list descriptions will
    rage on for years to come and each application will need to decide,
    based upon their requirements, which mechanism is appropriate.
    
    Within MCC all data passed across the call interface must be ILV
    encoded and all MCC management modules must conform to this
    requirement.  This requirement is based upon the need to compress
    information into a single argument that can be passed across the call
    interface, and allowed us to store information in a compressed form
    within the MCC database.  Passing information across the MCC call
    interface in the same form in which it is retrieved from the database
    provides a consistent view of the data to a management module. The
    ILV mechanism was the best choice for meeting the MCC requirements. 
    
    Item list could provide a way of passing variable amounts of
    information across the call interface, but would not address the
    requirment of storing the information in the database in a compressed
    form.
    
    Within MCC, protocol transformation is accomplished within the access
    modules (AMs).  The DECnet phase V use of DDM is dictated by the phase
    V architecture.  The MCC phase V AM use of ILV is dictated by the
    MCC architecture.
    
    The DECnet phase V AM receives requests in ILV form as passed across
    the MCC call interface.  To convert these request into item list so
    that we could use the DDM routines to convert them into CMIP request
    would force us into another level of conversion.  Instead we chose
    convert the ILV request directly into CMIP request for performance
    reasons. 
    
    I hope this clarifies the confusion.

    Peter