CORBA 2.1 NO IDEA Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

CORBA21 — Typecode equality

  • Key: CORBA21-95
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1136
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: I just stumbled on the following paragraph in 13.3.4 describing the CDR
    encoding of TypeCodes:

    "The name parameters in tk_objref, tk_struct, tk_union, tk_enum,
    tk_alias, and tk_except TypeCodes and the member name parameters in
    tk_struct, tk_union, tk_enum and tk_except TypeCodes are not specified
    by (or significant in) GIOP. Agents should not make assumptions about
    type equivalence based on these name values; only the structural
    information (including RepositoryId values, if provided) is significant.
    If provided, the strings should be the simple, unscoped names supplied
    in the OMG IDL definition text. If omitted, they are encoded as empty

    This would suggest that the name and member name parts of a typecode
    should never be considered significant when an ORB compares typecodes.

    Of course, this still leaves the issue of what to do about aliases up in
    the air.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Sun, 29 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:
  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:35 GMT