-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
Open
Copy link
Labels
community:architecturefeature_requestft:communicationFeature Team CommunicationFeature Team Communication
Milestone
Description
Discussed in https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/764
- 10:00 - Com related features
SOME/IP, Gateway/binding concept (Communication)
- The group agrees that in a production deployment scenario, the S-CORE COM within the applications contains only the IPC/shared memory binding. The support/translation into different communication protocols that are not accessible via shared memory shall be implemented via gateways.
- Pros and cons were already elaborated here: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/542#:~:text=in%20network%20service-,Error%20scenarios%3A,-De/Encoding%20fails
- The decision was taken for the following reasons:
- e2e protection does not affect applications in the same system interested in the same data
- if multiple applications in the system are interested in the same network message, the serialization/deserialization is only applied once instead of every application
- The above mentioned use-cases are met by ~95% of the applications
- Applications still have the option to "bypass" the internal IPC/Gateway translation logic to create communication channels in cases where e.g. having an end2end communication with a specific protocol between two applications on a separate host. This could be achieved "on top" of the S-CORE COM solution and utilize the IPC to transport "blobs". This shall only be applied with a good justification because this impacts the reprocessing use-case of that application.
- The configuration of how an IPC endpoint is represented on "the outside world" shall be maintainable within/next to the gateway.
- The S-CORE COM API might support different IPC implementations/bindings. However, the production system shall deploy only one specific IPC implementation. Having ABI compatibility of different IPC mechanisms is not a goal of S-CORE COM.
- FR required: Lead: ETAS/Qorix
Acceptance Criteria:
- Feature Request written according to the Change Management & Feature Request Template
- Feature requirements written according to the Requirements Engineering
- If necessary: extend the stakeholder requirements written according to the Requirements Engineering
Sub-issues
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
community:architecturefeature_requestft:communicationFeature Team CommunicationFeature Team Communication
Type
Projects
Status
In Progress
Status
No status
Status
No status