-
Key: CORBA24-49
-
Legacy Issue Number: 3095
-
Status: closed
-
Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Jishnu Mukerji [X] (Inactive))
-
Summary:
In spite of objections based on misunderstandings from certain quarters
I would like to propose that Principal in the IDL describing GIOP as
excerpted below be replaced by "sequence <octet>". For whatever it might
be worth, doing so would make the IDL in the GIOP module actually
compilable for the first time in its entire existence!module GIOP { // IDL extended for version 1.1 and 1.2
{ // Renamed from RequestHeader IOP::ServiceContextList service_context; unsigned long request_id; boolean response_expected; sequence <octet> object_key; string operation; Principal requesting_principal; ^^^^^^^^^ }
// GIOP 1.0
struct RequestHeader_1_0;
// GIOP 1.1
{ IOP::ServiceContextList service_context; unsigned long request_id; boolean response_expected; octet reserved[3]; // Added in GIOP 1.1 sequence <octet> object_key; string operation; Principal requesting_principal; ^^^^^^^^^ }
struct RequestHeader_1_1;
...
};Firstly, ever since the GIOP standard was adopted, the use of Principal
in that struct has been erroneous, since it is undefined in GIOP module,
unless adorned with a CORBA:: prefix. Secondly, in effect all that it is
trying to say
is that the Principal is represented as a sequence<octet> in the header
field
requesting_principal, not a Principal pseudo-interface, which is
undefined in that context anyway. Thirdly, even if you could find a
definition for an unadorned Principal somewhere, what is the meaning of
that type when CDR encoded? It really is
nothing but sequence<octet>.I think this issue should go to the Interop RTF.
-
Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Mon, 6 Dec 1999 05:00 GMT
-
Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
-
Disposition Summary:
closed in interop/2000-01-01
-
Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT
CORBA24 — Use of Principal in GIOP Module erroneous
- Key: CORBA24-49
- OMG Task Force: CORBA Core 2.4 RTF