NAM 1.0 NO IDEA Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

NAM — Problems with step-wise resolution

  • Key: NAM-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2953
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Cisco Systems ( Paul Kyzivat)
  • Summary:

    The specification of the NamingContext interface distinguishes between
    object and context bindings. It requires that when a multi-component
    name is resolved, each name other than the last must designate a context
    binding - an object binding to an object that happens to conform to the
    NamingContext interface shall not be sufficient.

    This restriction is easy for a name server to support, because it has
    direct access to the binding information. (In fact, multi-component
    resolution is easier for the server with this restriction because it
    need not narrow an object reference to determine if it is a
    NamingContext - a potentially expensive operation.)

    However this restriction places an unacceptable burden on "an
    application that chooses to do piecewise resolution". As things stand,
    an application that wishes to do piecewise resolution in a conforming
    way must first list each context in order to determine the binding type
    of the component at the next level. (There are many reasons to do
    step-wise resolution. For instance, some piece of code may have a
    "working context" in which it stores bindings. A client of it may be
    responsible for selecting the working context and providing it as an
    object reference. Also, when federated naming contexts are used,
    stepwise resolution can be a significant performance win.) The cost of
    doing the list can be arbitrarily high, depending on the number of
    bindings in the context.

  • Reported: NAM 1.0b1 — Tue, 5 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — NAM 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Decided not to add extra operations to support this particular client case.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT