ALBERT

All Library Books, journals and Electronic Records Telegrafenberg

feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    facet.materialart.
    Unknown
    In:  Other Sources
    Publication Date: 2019-08-26
    Description: In the domain of hard real-time systems, which language is better: C++ or the Real-Time Specification for Java (RTSJ)? Although ordinary Java provides a more productive programming environment than C++ due to its automatic memory management, that benefit does not apply to RTSJ when using NoHeapRealtimeThread and non-heap memory areas. As a result, RTSJ programmers must manage non-heap memory explicitly. While that's not a deterrent for veteran real-time programmers-where explicit memory management is common-the lack of certain language features in RTSJ (and Java) makes that manual memory management harder to accomplish safely than in C++. This paper illustrates the problem for practitioners in the context of moving data and managing memory in a real-time producer/consumer pattern. The relative ease of implementation and safety of the C++ programming model suggests that RTSJ has a struggle ahead in the domain of hard real-time applications, despite its other attractive features.
    Keywords: Computer Programming and Software
    Type: 19th Annual ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications; Oct 24, 2004 - Oct 28, 2004; Vancouver, British Columbia; Canada
    Format: text
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Publication Date: 2019-08-13
    Description: The Mission Data System framework defines closed-loop control system abstractions from State Analysis including interfaces for state variables, goals, estimators, and controllers that can be adapted to implement a goal-oriented control system. The framework further provides an execution environment that includes a goal scheduler, execution engine, and fault monitor that support the expression of goal network activity plans. Using these frameworks, adapters can build a goal-oriented control system where activity coordination is verified before execution begins (plan time), and continually during execution. Plan failures including violations of safety constraints expressed in the plan can be handled through automatic re-planning. This version optimizes a number of key interfaces and features to minimize dependencies, performance overhead, and improve reliability. Fault diagnosis and real-time projection capabilities are incorporated. This version enhances earlier versions primarily through optimizations and quality improvements that raise the technology readiness level. Goals explicitly constrain system states over explicit time intervals to eliminate ambiguity about intent, as compared to command-oriented control that only implies persistent intent until another command is sent. A goal network scheduling and verification process ensures that all goals in the plan are achievable before starting execution. Goal failures at runtime can be detected (including predicted failures) and handled by adapted response logic. Responses can include plan repairs (try an alternate tactic to achieve the same goal), goal shedding, ignoring the fault, cancelling the plan, or safing the system.
    Keywords: Man/System Technology and Life Support
    Type: NPO-47804 , NASA Tech Briefs, October 2013; 9
    Format: application/pdf
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...