ADA 1.3 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

ADA13 — IDL to Ada mapping for valuetypes

  • Key: ADA13-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5773
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Mr. Oliver M. Kellogg)
  • Summary:

    The version 1.2 IDL to Ada mapping specification (01-10-42)
    maps concrete valuetypes into two classes:
    1. the class hosted in a package with the mapped name of the
    IDL valuetype, and
    2. a child package of this package named Value_Impl.

    These two classes are separate and incompatible both in their
    controlling types (their inheritance graphs are unrelated)
    and operations (class 1 uses "in Value_Ref" for the controlling
    parameter while class 2 uses "access Object" for the controlling

    It is felt that this design choice is not sufficiently explained.

    In particular, it is not obvious why class 2 is not derived from
    class 1, and it is not explained why the signatures of the mapped
    operations are incompatible between the two classes.

    Further Elaboration

    Other language mappings, such as the IDL to C++ mapping, choose
    to make the two classes compatible: Class 2 inherits from class 1,
    and the mapped operations in class 2 override those in class 1
    (i.e. they have compatible signatures.)

    The "Package Pattern for Mapping" (4.4.1) treats valuetypes the
    same as interfaces. However, the distinct "proxy" and "impl"
    pattern applied to valuetypes makes necessary extra "Set" operations
    for associating implementation values with the "proxy" values.
    The programming of applications is encumbered by the need to cater
    to two distinct types.

    During the design of the Ada mapping for valuetypes, has it been
    considered to have the Value_Impl class inherit from the valuetype-
    mapped package? (The type Object could perhaps originate in the
    valuetype-mapped package, the type Value_Ref could be a classwide
    access to Object, and the methods in that package could have
    signatures like those in the Value_Impl package.)
    What were the reasons for not adopting such a mapping?

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Mon, 2 Dec 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT