Port: Is it needed?

[ghost]

An element can be declared as :

option 1:

context c1
   public media media1
   end
end

option 2:

context c1
   media media1 [public, etc]
   end
end

option 3:

context c1
private:
   media media1
   end
public:
   media media1
   end
end

And then the elements external to c1 have access to the media1.

[ghost]

This bring a few questions:

• All the elements external to c1 will have access to media1? Or just the father of c1?
• How the start of the application will be defined?

[robertogerson]

My suggestion is to use "export" (or maybe "public", or "port" itself) keyword:

context c1
   port media m1
   end
   # or
   export media m1
   end
   # or
   public media m1
   end
end

About the questions, one solution is to use the same behavior of NCL: 1. anyone that has access to the context, will have access to its exported (or "public" or "ported") media objects; and 2. all exported media (or public or ported media) objects will be started when the context is started.

Another issue that we must be aware of is that the original NCL element has two attributes: component and interface. By using one of the above keywords we are supporting the component attribute. How do we support the interface attribute?

[ghost]

Implemented with commit 8ed1d92

Still needs more tests though

[robertogerson]

Another possibility that we haven't discussed yet is:

context c1
   ports m1 m2 m3
   media m1 ... end
   media m2 ... end
   media m3 ... end
end

[ghost]

Another option:

context c1
   port m1 pC1M2:m2 m3 end
   media m1 ... end
   media m2 ... end
   media m3 ... end
end

This way, the ports of m1 and m3 are generated automatically,while the m2 one is "pC1M2"

[ghost]

For now, the port is like it used to be

context c1
   port pC1m1 m1 end
   port pC1m2 m2 end
   port pC1m3 m3 end
   media m1 ... end
   media m2 ... end
   media m3 ... end
end