We have a situation where there are 2 modules, with one having a publisher and the other subscriber. The publisher is going to publish some samples using key attributes. Is it possible for the publisher to prevent the subscriber from reading certain samples? This case would arise when the module with the publisher is currently updating the sample, which it does not want anybody else to read till it is done. Something like a mutex. We are planning on using Opensplice DDS but please give your inputs even if they are not specific to Opensplice. Thanks.
If I understand your question properly, then there is no native DDS mechanism to achieve what you are looking for. You wrote:
This case would arise when the module with the publisher is currently updating the sample, which it does not want anybody else to read till it is done. Something like a mutex.
There is no such thing as a "global mutex" in DDS.
However, I suspect you can achieve your goal by adding some information to the data-model and adjust your application logics. For example, you could add an enumeration field to your data; let's say you add a field called status and it can take one of the values CALCULATING or READY.
On the publisher side, in stead of "taking a the mutex", your application could publish a sample with the status value set to CALCULATING. When the calculation is finished, the new sample can be written with the value of status set to READY.
On the subscriber side, you could use a QueryCondition with status=READY as its expression. Read or take actions should only be done through the QueryCondition, using read_w_condition() or take_w_condition(). Whenever the status is not equal to READY, the subscribing side will not see any samples. This approach takes advantage of the mechanism that newer samples overwrite older ones, assuming that your history depth is set to the default value of 1.
If this results in the behaviour that you are looking for, then there are two remaining disadvantages to this approach. First, the application logics get somewhat polluted by the use of the status field and the QueryCondition. This could easily be hidden by an abstraction layer though. It would even be possible to hide it behind some lock/unlock-like interface. The second disadvantage is due to the extra sample going over the wire when setting the status field to CALCULATING. But extra communications can not be avoided anyway if you want to implement a distributed mutex-like functionality. Only if your samples are pretty big and/or high-frequent, this is an issue. In that case, you might have to resort to a dedicated, small Topic for the single purpose of simulating the locking mechanism.