Subject: OOVHDL meeting minutes, March 7, 2000
From: Peter Ashenden (petera@cs.adelaide.edu.au)
Date: Tue Mar 14 2000 - 19:46:11 PST
Thanks to Ernst Christen for preparing the minutes.
PA
--OO-VHDL Meeting 3/7/2000 ========================
At Mentor Graphics, San Jose.
Meeting attendees: Peter Ashenden (meeting chair) petera@cs.adelaide.edu.au Paul Menchini mench@mench.com Ron Waxman r.waxman@computer.org Robert Myers rjmyers@raytheon.com John Michael Williams jwill@pacbell.com Wolfgang Ecker wolfgang.ecker@infineon.com Tom Kazmierski tjk@ecs.soton.ac.uk Ernst Christen (note taker) christen@analogy.com
Meeting Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Minutes 3. PAR status 4. Review report 5. Text for email vote 6. SID liaison 7. AOB
Peter called the meeting to order at 9:20.
2. After the welcome Peter summarized the minutes from the last meeting at FDL'99. Paul moves to approve, John seconds. Minutes approved without further discussion.
3. The OO-VHDL PAR was re-approved at the steering committee meeting 3/6/2000. This now goes to NESCOM, which meets four times a year. NESCOM will assign PAR number.
In the discussion Paul advised the OO group of their next steps and explained some related issues. The WG must develop policies describing at least voting rights. The group is free to establish rules for this purpose, DASC membership is only required for elections. To prevent spamming, the mailing lists were closed, and only people on the list can send to the list. For special cases there is a separate send-only list.
Peter took the action item to develop WG policies and to send them to the mailing list.
4. The review report was sent to the mailing list on 2/26. Peter summarized the history of the review, then Paul summarized the report: All reviewers answered four questions, Paul then drew a conclusion. His major concern with both proposals are changes to the visibility rules. Expert recommendation: start with SUAVE and add design entity objects.
John: What are design entity objects? Paul: Design entities that provide inheritance and encapsulation. He thinks it's difficult to add behavior because behavior is not usually self-contained (i.e. there are interactions between inherited behavior and new behavior). It's easier to add ports.
On a question from the audience why an integration of the two proposals wasn't possible, Peter explained that the proposals have different objects. In ObjectiveVHDL the object kind is part of the encapsulation, in SUAVE it is part of the declaration.
John: What does "Adopt xyz" mean? Peter: The purpose of the email vote is to select one of the proposals as the basis for language development. The proposals are intentionally not called LRMs, at this time they are language descriptions. Language development will be the responsibility of the WG.
There was surprise that the reflector has been quiet since the review report was sent out, with the exception of a few clarifications. Peter volunteered that there are about 50 people on the mailing list.
John felt that the approach should have been driven by language constructs rather than prototypes. Paul clarified: These are straw men satisfying slightly different requirements. Development starts from one of these.
Wolfgang added that he still has to submit a few comments related to the review. He promised to have them ready by 3/15. Peter commented that the vote was scheduled to start 3/12, and he proposed that Wolfgang's comments become part of the discussion. Paul agreed. No objections.
5. The outline for the email vote was agreed on at the September meeting. Paul suggested to add some context which may not be obvious to everybody. Peter proposed to add a third option, so the options would be: ObjectiveVHDL SUAVE SUAVE with entity/architecture inheritance The voting constituency will be DASC members (as described in the outline). The vote will open 3/12 and close 3/26 12pm PST. Both Wolfgang Nebel and Peter will tally.
6. Peter explained the reason for coordination in the overlapping scope of the two efforts. He said that he hasn't heard recently from the SID group. He provided a language critique and had no discussion since. He has heard that the group had hired an LRM writer (presmuably from the University of Manchester). Peter took an action item to contact Jim Heaton and Kamal.
7. No other business.
Meeting adjourned at 10:05.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Mar 14 2000 - 19:48:46 PST