1. OMG Mailing List
  2. No Description

Closed Issues

  • Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board
  • Name: orb
  • Issues Count: 506

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
CORBA23-228 TypeCode constants for bounded strings? CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA23-227 DynValue::get_members/set_members CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA24-198 IDL constant declarations CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-197 Conflict between POA & Exceptions spec for OBJECT_NOT_EXIST CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4.2 Closed; No Change closed
CORBA25-56 SYNC_WITH_SERVER CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Closed; No Change closed
CORBA23-226 Type code parameter ordering CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA24-196 Changebars missing from POA chapter CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-190 Valuetype "copying" semantics underspecified? CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Duplicate or Merged closed
CORBA24-192 Typo: "Wrongpolicy" CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-191 destroy on POA CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Duplicate or Merged closed
CORBA24-189 Scope of inherited valuetype initializers CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Duplicate or Merged closed
CORBA24-188 Null valuetypes not supported by DynValue CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Duplicate or Merged closed
CORBA25-55 International Strings in Encapsulations CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA24-187 Expected behavior of POA configured with ServantLocator receiving LocateRe CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA23-225 The insert_dyn_any and get_dyn_any operations are barely documented CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA23-223 WRONG_TRANSACTION CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Duplicate or Merged closed
CORBA23-222 Proposal on floating point fixes CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Duplicate or Merged closed
CORBA23-224 OBV, value-reference substitution, Multiple Inheritance CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-221 Object::is_a CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-220 DII operations "get_response and get_next_response CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA24-186 Section 3.3.8.16:deactivate_object() operation CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA23-219 6.5.6. Repository Paragraph 2 - objection CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.3 Closed; No Change closed
CORBA26-96 New core issue: need UNKNOWN reply status CORBA 2.5 CORBA 2.6 Resolved closed
CORBA26-98 TypeCode interface issue CORBA 2.5 CORBA 2.6 Resolved closed
CORBA26-97 Valuetype initialzers need exceptions CORBA 2.5 CORBA 2.6 Resolved closed
CORBA26-95 Syntax error in CORBA IDL CORBA 2.5 CORBA 2.6 Resolved closed
CORBA25-54 Incorrect example for recursive definitions which can span multiple levels CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA24-185 Definition of TRANSIENT minor code 1 confusing CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.4.2 Resolved closed
CORBA24-184 IDL format for RepositoryId CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.4.2 Resolved closed
CORBA24-183 Valuetypes supporting local interfaces are local types? CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.4.2 Resolved closed
CORBA24-182 #pragma version issue CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.4.2 Resolved closed
CORBA24-181 Servant deactivation callback? CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.4.2 Resolved closed
CORBA24-180 DynUnion incomplete CORBA 2.4 CORBA 2.4.2 Resolved closed
CORBA24-179 Format of RMI Hashed Format repid CORBA 2.4 CORBA 2.4.2 Resolved closed
CORBA24-178 Typo: "Wrongpolicy" CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-177 Minor typo CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-176 Section 4.3.7.1 get_client_policy? CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-175 Typo on page 7-9 of 2.3.1 CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-174 BAD_QOS system exception CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-173 attributes and system exceptions CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-172 why was is_abstract added to structs in CORBA IR? CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA23-218 Null Value semantics under specified CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA23-217 DynFactory or DynAnyFactory? CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA23-216 is_abstract parameter missing from create_interface() IDL CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA23-215 Destruction of ORB CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-214 OMG VMCID CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-213 New proposal for recursive TypeCode creation CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-212 deactivate_object page no: 9-35 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-211 Typo on pages 10-53, 10-55, and 10-70 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-210 Proposal for creating recursive TypeCodes CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-208 Missing orb.idl CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-209 Types defined in the CORBA module? CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-206 Size of IDL char CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Closed; No Change closed
CORBA23-207 Incorrect LifeCycle IDL? CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-205 Proposed change to IDL in section 3.10.2, page 3-32 "Parameter Declaration CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-204 CosObjectIdentity::ObjectIdentifiers can"t be UUIDs? CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-203 Illegal IDL in CosTime module CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-202 TypeCode comparison proposal (02) CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-201 TypeCode comparison proposal (01) CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-200 Description of Wide String type CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-199 name scoping issue CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-198 IDL struct issue CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-197 Type codes cannot describe all unions CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-196 Type code operations under-specified CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-195 Type code typos (as only one issue) CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-194 Typo in chapter 8 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-193 Does the DII support the standard object operations? CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-190 Typos in IR IDL in Specification (03) CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-192 Typos in IR IDL in Specification (050 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-191 Typos in IR IDL in Specification (04) CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-188 Typos in IR IDL in spec (01) CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-189 Typos in IR IDL in Specification (02) CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-187 / in prefix pragma? CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-186 Versioning by the back door? CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-185 GIOP typo, section 4.2 (page 4.4) of CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-184 Domain Manager related specification shortcomings (03) CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-183 Semantics and standard exceptions CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-182 Forward declarations and inheritance CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-179 ORB_init CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-181 Indentation on page 4-4 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-180 Editorial issue, chapter 8 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-177 How to deal with object identity CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-178 IDl "module" construct - IDL files CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-176 Typo in type code section (13.3.4) CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-173 Wide character and wide string literals CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-175 Type of fixed point quotients CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-174 Fixed point constants issue CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-172 Fixed point constant typo in 2.2 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-171 Marshalling is_equivalent CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-170 #pragma prefix issue CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-169 CORBA 2.2 - "native" and the interface repository CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA22-142 union typecode CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-141 CDR encoding of TypeCode names inconsistent with equal operation CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA21-90 OMG IDL prefix pragma CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.1 Resolved closed
CORBA21-87 WRONG_TRANSACTION CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.1 Resolved closed
CORBA21-89 Description of constant expression semantics is unclear CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.1 Resolved closed
CORBA21-88 Object terminal missing from IDL grammar CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.1 Resolved closed
CORBA21-85 Interface Repository CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.1 Resolved closed
CORBA21-86 OTS 1.1 specification changes CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.1 Resolved closed
CORBA21-84 CORBA::Bounds and CORBA::TypeCode::Bounds CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-83 3.10.3 Raises Expressions CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Duplicate or Merged closed
CORBA21-82 Do simple/anonymous types have repository IDs? CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-81 Exception as explicit parameter CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA26-10 section 7.1.1 claims to define the "NVList structure", but doesn't CORBA 2.5 CORBA 2.6 Resolved closed
CORBA26-9 Implied IDL for interfaces in modules CORBA 2.5 CORBA 2.6 Resolved closed
CORBA26-8 IDL for ORB::resolve_initial_references CORBA 2.5 CORBA 2.6 Resolved closed
CORBA26-7 set_length operation of the DynSequence interface CORBA 2.5 CORBA 2.6 Resolved closed
CORBA26-6 the IDL include directive should introduce declarations into the namespace CORBA 2.5 CORBA 2.6 Resolved closed
CORBA26-5 DynUnion operations CORBA 2.5 CORBA 2.6 Resolved closed
CORBA26-4 Problem with IDL Context interface CORBA 2.5 CORBA 2.6 Resolved closed
CORBA26-3 Chapter 11, section 11.3.8.19 (WrongPolicy)" CORBA 2.5 CORBA 2.6 Resolved closed
CORBA26-2 Support for is_a for local interfaces CORBA 2.5 CORBA 2.6 Resolved closed
CORBA26-1 Section 11.3.8.16 - ambiguity CORBA 2.5 CORBA 2.6 Resolved closed
CORBA25-44 Nil return from resolve_initial_references() CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-43 Interpretation of time field in UtcT? CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-42 There is no mapping for fixed types in the COM/CORBA mapping CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-41 COBRA problem using pragma prefix for modules CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-40 CORBA 2.4.2 (01-02-01.pdf) 4.2.3.4 shutdown (relevant portion) CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-39 Local interface is-a Object? CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-38 Wither pseudo-objects? CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-37 Missing TypeCode identity CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-36 Problem with resolution to 4285 and 4306 CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-35 get_interface() underspecified CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-34 Typo in UML for POA CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-33 DII create_request CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-32 Ambiguity in non_existent CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-31 String literal definition incorrect. CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-30 Inconsistent minor code for MARSHAL CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-29 Minor code CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-28 Missing POAManager identity CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-27 BAD_OPERATION needs minor code and completion status CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-26 Cross-reference refers to wrong section CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-25 Issue: Error in section 4.5.3.2 ORBInitRef CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-24 Section 10.5.22.2 what happens when conditions not met CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-23 Restrictions on native types CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-22 Clarification about include files and IDL compiler behavior CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-21 Definition of NamingContextExt interface in IDL of Appendix A not consisten CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-20 3.7.4 Forward Declaration (for interfaces) doesn't mention local CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-19 What is the semantics of the DataInputStream::read_*_array() operations? CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-18 #include issue CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-17 DynValueBox::set_boxed_value should also raise InvalidValue CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-16 misleading wording in 10.5.22.2 Write Interface CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-15 Inconsistent text for unknown system exception CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-14 ForwardRequest from normal operations CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-13 Introduction of identifiers CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-12 Type redefinition in derived interface CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-11 PortableServer::ObjectId CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-10 core issue: unchecked narrow CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-9 Container::lookup() ordering requirements CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-8 Section 2.1.7 of CORBA 2.3 and 2.4 CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-7 Legal IDL? CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-6 CORBA::ORB::object_to_string() raising INV_OBJREF or BAD_PARAM CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-5 ServantLocator preinvoke/ postinvoke semantics CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-4 Minor code 2 description for OBJECT_NOT_EXIST not consistent w/ use CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-3 POAManager::deactivate should not mandate ORB::shutdown implementation CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-2 POAManager::deactivate does not specify behavior for "reject" CORBA 2.4.1 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-1 Can a valuetype support multiple non-abstract interfaces via inheritance? CORBA 2.4 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA21-35 Request reuse CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-34 Whether unions carry exact discriminant information CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-33 Recusive Type Definitions CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-37 Usage of standard exceptions CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-36 Ambiguity in DII and DSI CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-42 CORBA2.0, 1.2.2 Paragraph 2 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-41 Scope of standard exceptions CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-39 _is_a with CORBA::Object as input parameter CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-38 Unqualified names in scopes CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-47 3.10.3 Raises Expressions CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-46 3.9 Exception Declaration CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-45 2.5 Structure of an Object Adapter CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-44 2.1 Structure of an Object Request Broker CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-40 Unions with enum as discriminator type CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-43 1.2.2 Requests Paragraph last - editorial CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-68 IDL grammar CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-67 8.1 Role of the Basic Object Adapter Para 1 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-66 7.4 ORB Initialization Last Paragraph - objection CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-65 7.4 ORB Initialization Last Paragraph - objection CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-64 7.2.5 Probing for Object Non-Existence Paragraph 2 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-63 7.2.4 Equivalence Checking Operation Paragraph 3 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-62 7.2.1 Determining the Object Implementation and Interface CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-61 7.1 Converting Object References to Strings Para 3 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-60 6.5.6 Repository Paragraph 4 - editorial CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-59 6.5.4 Container Last Paragraph - editorial CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-58 6.4.3 Interface Objects Paragraph 2 - editorial CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-57 6.4.3 Interface Objects Paragrapg 1 - editorial CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-56 6.3.1 Managing Interface Repositories CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-55 5.3.2 Registering Dynamic Implementation Routines Para 1- comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-54 5.2 Explicit Request State: ServerRequest Pseudo Object CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-53 4.6.5 delete_values Paragraph 1 - editorial CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-52 4.3.3 get_response CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-49 4.1 Overview, Paragraph 3, editorial CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-48 3.15.2 Object Non-Existence, Para 1, editorial CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-51 4.2.3 invoke CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA21-50 4.1.2 Memory usage, Para 1, editorial CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.0 Resolved closed
CORBA24-63 Efficient construction of Any types w/o DynamicAny CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-62 special-casing TypeCode is unnecessary CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-78 POA status during destruction is unclear CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-77 Problem with valuetype parameter copying CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-66 Inheritence table 3-10 wrong? CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-65 poll_response() CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Closed; No Change closed
CORBA24-64 Ordering issues in the DII CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-68 Does a value in a valuebox make sense? CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-67 Semantics for DynAny::equal underspecified CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-72 Minor glitch about forward declared things CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-71 #pragma rules are too restrictive CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-70 Editorial mistake in IDL chapter CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-69 Can native be used in constructed IDL types? CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-74 valuetype factory inheritence? CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-73 Definition of COMPLETED_NO needs to be clarified CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-76 response_flags in interop draft CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-75 symbolic constants for minor exception codes CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Closed; No Change closed
CORBA24-93 ORB::shutdown underspecified CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-92 Policy Management in the ORB core CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-84 Inheritance description incorrect CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-83 ORB mediation for servant managers, references for servant managers? CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-95 Non-escaped keywords in published IDL CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-94 servant_to_id versus servant_to_reference CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-88 Valuetypes with multiple interfaces CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-87 Incorrect use of negative fixed scale CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-91 Some problems CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-90 ORB shutdown vs destroy CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-89 POA servant_to_id inconsistent with servant_to_reference CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-86 is_equivalent and policies CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-85 ValueMemberDef section omitted from CORBA 2.3.1 spec CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-82 POA deactivate_object description is ambiguous CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-81 how are valid ORBids determined CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-97 AbstractBase not declared. CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-96 Pragma version 2.3 CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-80 POA namespace and ORB ID CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-79 return type of TypeCode::fixed_scale() CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Closed; No Change closed
CORBA24-112 Should POA spec examples use string_to_ObjectId? CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-103 incomplete rules for forward declaration of structs/unions CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-102 With reference to forward declarations of structs and unions. CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-108 ORB ID accessor CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-107 read_fixed() and write_fixed() methods missing CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-111 Values for CORBA::ARG_IN,... not defined CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-110 module IOP_N needs a real name CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-109 "omg.org" prefix missing from interceptor specification and its reference CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-106 Initializers and user exceptions CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-105 IDL: Clashes with inherited identifiers CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-104 Nested Recursive Structs Legal in 2.3.x? CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-99 reference_to_servant raises ObjectNotActive, WrongAdapter, and WrongPolicy CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-98 Missing exception for activation CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-101 There is inconsistency in the POA.IDL and description in section 11.3.8.19 CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-100 description of unknown_adapter CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-61 local interfaces and the DII CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-60 servant_to_id CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Closed; No Change closed
CORBA24-59 IDL scoping rules CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-3 mixing giop versions CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-2 interop issue: what system exceptions may be raised on GIOP 1.0? CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-1 The syntax for stringified IORs in section 13.6.6 CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-19 creation of arguments to TypeCode creation ops CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-18 DynFixed editorial issue CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-10 Wchar as discriminator in union CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-9 CORBA 2.3: minor editorial issue CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-8 chapter 3 and recursion CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-15 URLs interact poorly with code set selection CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-14 Why are Standard Exceptions defined in IDL chapter? CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-13 What is the RepId of Object? CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-12 DataInputStream specification is inefficient for Java CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-11 POA exception minor codes CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-17 Use of incomplete recursive TypeCodes underspecified CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-16 Semantics of DynAny with alias TypeCodes CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-7 ambiguity in wstrings having a Unicode escape sequence CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-6 POA: false placement of paragraph CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-21 formal/99-08-01.txt missing pragmas CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-20 CORBA::ORB::RequestSeq definition obsolete CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-5 OBV interface support inconsistencies CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-4 $issue.summary CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA23-59 Use UNICODE Character set CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-58 Issue - no PIDL, just language bindings CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-61 Try to define obligatory and optional parts of the CORBA specification. CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-60 Application Interface issue CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-45 No description for NativeDef CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-44 Errors in figure 10-2 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-55 Forward-Declared Interfaces CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-54 Value base and the IFR CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-53 Clarifications needed in section 5.2.2 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-52 Clarify text in section 15.3.7 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-57 Grammar section 3.9.2 missing "float" rules, and other problems CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-56 Calling get_response twice? CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-47 No description for ValueBoxDef CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-46 is_a description is wrong CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-51 Error in text describing TypeCode interface CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-50 RMI Repository ID missing from section 10.6 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-49 Text was inserted in wrong place CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-48 Error in ValueDef IDL CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-2 Domain manager related specification shortcoming(s) (01) CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-1 Operation to add to CORBA::ORB pseudo-object CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-5 Semantics of system exception completion_status CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-4 resolve_initial_references under-specified CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-3 Domain Manager related specification shortcoming (02)-ConstructionPolicy CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA24-24 (CORBA Core) Data streams missing arrays of long double CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-23 Problem with text of POAManager::deactivate() CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-34 IDL and C++ relationship CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-33 PIDL vs Local CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-27 CORBA 2.3 Editorial issue for TypeCodes & abstract_interface CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-26 Editorial issue for CORBA 2.3, 1.3.8.20 CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-25 Component ids in 13.6.2.2 CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-36 Meaningless sentence on page 3-11? CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-35 Preprocessing of IDL CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-32 Type Code Section issue CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-30 Minor codes for Standard System Exceptions in Chapter 5 missing CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-29 General Exception Question CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-22 CORBA 2.3 spec hasn't been updated with corrections in COM-CORBA Part B CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-28 Exception section issue CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-31 Minor codes for Standard System Exceptions in Chapter 8 missing CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA23-83 RMI style repository ID hash code CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-82 forward declaration in ptc/98-10-04 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-86 DynAny.insert_valuetype shoud be insert_val CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-85 confusing rules for operations on Object CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-84 Incorrect IDL is section 5.5.3 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-81 LocateReply body alignment issue CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-80 POA issue, section 11.3.8.10 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-93 sharing valuetypes across Anys CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-92 UNIQUE_ID and ServantActivator issue CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-95 New "opaque" data type CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-94 DynAny::equal operator issue CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-89 ORB::shutdown again CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-88 activate_object_with_id and exceptions CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-87 Repository ID for Object CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-91 Clarification on IdUniquenessPolicy CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-90 deactivate_object asymmetry CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-28 Core uses both "standard" and "system" exception terminology CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-27 create_policy specification needs to be completed CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-26 Need namespace for Policy Type CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-40 Codebases with multiple URLs CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-39 Supporting multiple abstract interfaces CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-31 uses of recursive_tc CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-30 is_a underspecified CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-29 Local operations on CORBA::Object CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-42 Clarify meaning of no IDL initializers CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-41 Misleading text in section 3.2.5.2 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-38 Names of Data*Stream methods CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-37 Custom Marshaling clarification CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-36 Missing minor code CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-35 POA SINGLE_THREAD_MODEL description ambiguous CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-33 Custom marshalling & AbstractBase CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-32 Sequences of recursive structs/unions CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-34 POA threading policies CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-43 Signature of unmarshal method is wrong CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA24-56 valuebox and DynAny CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-55 OMG wchar <-> COM WCHAR in CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-54 What is the TypeCode for ValueBase? CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-50 Non-standard system exceptions CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-49 Use of Principal in GIOP Module erroneous CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-48 create_POA and inactive state? CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-47 value type substitutability CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-46 OMG IDL Syntax and Semantics issue CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-45 TypeCode issue CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-37 Problem with the "Special scoping" rules in 3.15.3 CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-44 Editorial glitch in DynAny::destroy, section 9.2.3.6 CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-43 What is the NO_RESPONSE exception good for? CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-42 Section 7.6: IDL context housecleaning CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-41 Question about IDL \uxxxx escape format CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-58 Bug in 11.3.7.6 CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-57 null & void TCs and DynAny CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-53 Do valueboxes have factories? CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-52 DynAny & abstract interfaces don't mix! CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-51 Errors in published IDL for CORBA module CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-40 Missing "abstract" in forward declaration CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-39 The algorithm for TypeCode::equivalent in 10.7.1 was not updated CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA24-38 Codeset conversions and unions CORBA 2.3.1 CORBA 2.4 Resolved closed
CORBA23-69 IR Changes in 2.3 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-68 What value type does ValueDef"s base_value() return? CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-63 Interceptors broken CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-62 clarification and bug in InterfaceDef::FullInterfaceDescription CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-77 omg.org prefix not well specified CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-76 Scope of SendingContextRunTime service context CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-71 CORBA::Object::ping ? CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-70 Inconsistent spellings of "policy" related identifiers: CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-73 What use is CORBA::exception_type? CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-72 Inconsistent Definition of Flags type CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-79 POA that has IdAssignmentPolicy=SYSTEM--portability problem CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-78 Can an any with a tk_null or tk_void TypeCode be encoded with CDR? CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-75 Need to specify exception for abstract interface error CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-74 Error in IRObject definition in 98-12-04 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-65 POA Construction Policy. CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-64 another problem with IDL specification section 3.9.2 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-67 Inheritance of value types CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-66 Problems in Chapter 5 IDL CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Closed; No Change closed
CORBA23-7 DynStruct::get_members needs exception CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-6 Lifetime of ORB and validity of ORB pointe CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-25 Scoping resolution for member names CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-24 Typo in POA CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-23 void * in DII Chapter CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-13 set_servant_manager CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-12 Handling of minor codes for standard exceptions underspecified CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-11 page 3-47: Identifiers CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-10 Nested scopes CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-17 What does interface substitutability mean in CORBA? CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-16 Which OBV initialiser to run is under-specified CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-22 Exception for abstract interface inheritance CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-21 long double problem? CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-20 Recursive exceptions? CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-9 Multiple paths to a recursive sequence typecode CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-8 Change to IDL for anonymous types CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-19 InconsistentTypeCode exception in CORBA 2.3 CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-18 Recursive IDL types CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-15 DynUnion::member() CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA23-14 Missing equality for DynAny CORBA 2.2 CORBA 2.3 Resolved closed
CORBA22-106 CORBA::Contained::describe() underspecified CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-103 Trader constraint language and international characters CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-102 defined_in member of ModuleDescription for top-level module CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-99 #pragma processing CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-98 Ambiguity in non_existent() specification CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-101 Inheritance of Exceptions CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-100 Question about typecode creation CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-95 locally constrained CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-94 IDL types are ambiguous with inheritance CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-97 Appendix B lists incorrect CORBA Components IDs CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-96 union typecode (02) CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-105 Incorrect definition of "object type" CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-104 Resetting #pragma prefix? CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-93 RIDs CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-54 6.7.1 The TypeCode Interface All Paragraphs - objection CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-53 6.7 TypeCodes Paragraph 3 - objection CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-52 6.6.4 Pragma Directives for RepositoryId Para 1 - objection CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-57 CORE spec reference CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-56 6.7.2 TypeCode Constants Last Paragraph - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-55 6.7.1 The Type Code Interface Paragraph 4 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-64 "service"~~operation or interface? CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-63 What exactly is a request CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-62 inherit vs. include CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-61 Scope and use of prefix pragma in IDL-style repository IDs CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-70 sec 17.7.1: IDL for interface request doesn"t match C++ mapping CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-69 Sequence parameter specified is ignored CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-68 request() should be added to IDL (section 17.13.2) CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Closed; No Change closed
CORBA22-67 Section 16.7: only C++ mapping defines string_free and string_dup CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Closed; No Change closed
CORBA22-59 Enums and enumerators CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-58 Internationalization CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-66 limited-length strings CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-65 Question about IDL grammar CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-60 Terminology consistency CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-13 Pseudo-IDL identifiers differ by case only CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-12 Apparent error in CORBA 2.0 Interoperability CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-11 Repository IDs CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-4 Do typecodes need literal constant representations in all mappings? CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-3 Missing info about the semantics of ORB_init and OA_init CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-8 Typecodes for recursive sequences CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-7 lookup() questions CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-10 DSI and oneway operations CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-9 ServerRequest::op_def() CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-6 Interface Repository Error Handling CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-5 CORBA::InterfaceDef name collision CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-2 IFR: union elements associated with case labels CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-1 Inheritance of describe_contents() CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-92 Containers CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-91 Proposed IFR exceptions CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-90 TypedefDef issue CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-89 CORBA 2.1 IR Structdef typo CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-88 Minor bug in 2.1 spec CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-87 Inheriting exceptions in IDL CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-81 Non ASCII alphabetics in IDL identifiers CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-80 Native types with respect to typecodes, DII, DSI,Interface Reposit. CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-79 TypeCode equality CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-84 Bug in the 2.1.spec for IDL unions CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-83 Figure 2-2 in CORBA 2.0 and CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-82 Octet and enum constants CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-76 Section 7.8: editorial CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-75 Syntax for basic types must be updated CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-74 create_exception() is declared outside any interface scope CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-86 Inclusion of standard exception CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-85 Issue with ObjectId_to_string and string_to_ObjectId CORBA 2.1 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-78 Do identifiers and keywords clash if they differ in case? CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-77 Section 3.7.2: take new IDL type extensions into account CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-73 TCKind enum should be updated CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-72 No defined value for OBJECT_NIL CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-71 Section 7.2: get_implementation function CORBA 2.0 CORBA 2.2 Closed; No Change closed
CORBA22-24 4.6.2 set_on_value Paragraph 2 - objection CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-23 4.3.1 sen3 - comment 23 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-22 4.6 Context Object Operations, Para 2 - objection CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-19 4.1.3 Return Status and Exceptions CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-18 4.1.1 Common Data Structures, Paragraph 6, comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-28 4.6.4 get_values Paragraph 5 - objection CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-27 4.6.4 get_values Paragraph 4 - objection CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-26 4.6.4 get_values Paragraph 2 - objection CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-25 4.6.3 set_values CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-17 Interface for managing interceptors is missing CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-16 Portability and the #include directive CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-21 4.2.2 add_arg Paragraph 5-comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-20 4.2.1 create_request Paragraph 8 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-31 6.4.3 Interface Objects Paragraph 3 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-30 4.6.7 delete Paragraph 4 - objection CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-15 Recursive sequence TypeCodes CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-14 Similar structure to IR::Identifier CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-29 4.6.5 delete_values Paragraph 3 - objection CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-40 6.5.4 Container Paragraph 10 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-39 6.5.4 Container Paragraph 8 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-38 6.5.4 Container Paragraph 6 - editorial CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-45 6.5.8 ConstantDef Interface Paragraph 2 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-44 6.5.6 Repository Paragraph 4 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-43 6.5.4 Container Paragraph 15 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-48 6.5.20 AttributeDef Paragraph 2 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-47 6.5.11 UnionDef Last Paragraph - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-46 6.5.10 StructDef Last paragraph - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-51 6.6.1 OMG IDL Format Paragraph 5 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-50 6.5.22 InterfaceDef Paragraphs 7 and 8 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-49 6.5.22 InterfaceDef Paragraph 6 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-37 6.5.4 Container Paragraph 5 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-36 6.5.4 Container Paragraph 2 - objection CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-34 6.5.3 Contained - Paragraph 7 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-33 6.5.3 Contained Paragraph 2 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-42 6.5.4 Container Paragraph 12 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-41 6.5.4 Container Paragraph 11 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-35 6.5.3 Contained Paragraph 10 - comment CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed
CORBA22-32 6.5.2 IRObject Paragraph 3 - objection CORBA 1.2 CORBA 2.2 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

TypeCode constants for bounded strings?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 2007
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: CORBA 2.2 has the following sentences near the beginning of section
    8.7.2:

    In the case of an unnamed, bounded string type used directly in an
    operation or attribute declaration, a TypeCode constant named
    TC_string_n, where n is the bound of the string is produced. (For
    example, "string<4> op1();" produces the constant "TC_string_4".)

    CORBA 2.3 is missing these sentences.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 28 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3.1
  • Disposition Summary:
  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:27 GMT

DynValue::get_members/set_members

  • Legacy Issue Number: 2252
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The final draft (ptc/98-10-16 - from 15-Nov-98) defines
    DynValue::get_members/set_members as:


    struct NameValueAccess

    { FieldName id; Visibility access; any value }

    ;

    typedef sequence<NameValueAccess> NameValueAccessSeq

    NameValueAccessSeq get_members();
    void set_members(in NameValueAccessSeq values) raises (InvalidSeq),

    and goes on to say "Any attempt to set or get a member which has been
    declared private in the IDL definition of the value contained in the
    dynamic any raises the exception NO_PERMISSION."

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 10 Dec 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    :get_members/set_members as:

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:26 GMT

IDL constant declarations

  • Legacy Issue Number: 2883
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: the spec makes no statement as to the legality of the following constant
    definitions:

    const long C1 = 3.14;
    const short C2 = 1.0;
    const unsigned long C3 = -1;
    const char C4 = 10;
    const char C5 = 500;
    const long C6 = 999999;
    const short C7 = C6;
    const octet C8 = 1000;
    const short C9 = C5;
    const short C10 = 100 * 100 * 100;

    I"m sure that there are lots of others I haven"t thought of, but you get
    the idea...

    There are certainly lots of holes in the spec, with respect to both the
    legal types of the RHS and rules for overflow/underflow and mixed-type
    arithmetic. Looks like this will require a major cleanup...

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Sun, 12 Sep 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:
  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:24 GMT

Conflict between POA & Exceptions spec for OBJECT_NOT_EXIST

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3919
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: DSTC ( Stephen Crawley)
  • Summary:

    There is a conflict between the specification of the OBJECT_NOT_EXIST
    exception and its use in the POA spec. The exception definition says
    that OBJECT_NOT_EXIST means that an object has gone away forever, and
    that clients should tidy up references to it. However, the POA spec
    requires an ORB to raise this exception in cases where the object may
    not have gone away for ever.

    In particular, 11.2.6 (in the 5 May 2.4 Draft) requires an ORB to raise
    OBJECT_NOT_EXIST if request comes in for a child POA that is not active
    and was not activated by the application's POA Activator. While this
    may mean that the object has gone away for ever, it doesn't always
    mean that. For example:

    1) If the server admin has stuffed port number allocations, a server
    may accidentally get requests for POAs that it doesn't know about.

    2) If the server has been incorrectly (re-)built one of its "static"
    child POAs might not be activate.

    3) If the server is buggy and / or its persistent state is flakey,
    it may temporarily fail to dynamically activate a child POA.

    In each case, the problem MAY be one that can be fixed, allowing the
    missing POA to reappear in a few minutes. It is therefore inappropriate
    for the ORB to be telling the client that the Object has gone away for
    ever.

    For what it is worth, I think the ORB should raise another exception,
    say OBJ_ADAPTER, in the default case. It might raise OBJECT_NOT_EXIST
    if it (somehow) tracks the lifecycle of transient and / or persistent
    POAs, or if the application code tells it the POA no longer exists.
    Note: I'm not suggesting that an ORB be required to support such things.

    The other alternative is to change the definition of OBJECT_NOT_EXIST
    to remove the implication that the object has gone away forever and
    the suggestion that clients should throw away references to the object.
    [I think that's wrong though ...]

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 28 Sep 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — CORBA 2.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:23 GMT

SYNC_WITH_SERVER

  • Key: CORBA25-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4317
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    On page 22-6, we say for SYNC_WITH_SERVER:

    For a server using a POA, the reply would be sent after invoking
    any ServantManager, but before delivering the request to the target
    Servant.

    What's the motivation for this? Why wait that long? The ServantManager
    may still fail to return a servant for the request, meaning that
    the ORB might as well acknowledge the request before the ServantManager is
    called without losing anything.

    Also, as specified, the receiving ORB has to first run any adapter
    activators. Again, there doesn't seem any point in waiting this long.
    Why can't the receiving ORB simply acknowledge the request as soon as
    it has read the request header off the wire?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Mon, 21 May 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    withdrawn by submitter

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:22 GMT

Type code parameter ordering

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1543
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    the TypeCode pseudo interface makes no mention about the order of parameters
    for structured types. For example, given the IDL struct

    struct MyStruct

    { char c_mem; string s_mem; }

    ;

    it is legal for member_name(0) to return "s_mem" and member_name(1) to
    return "c_mem" (provided member_type(0) returns a char type code and
    member_type(1) returns a string type code).

    The same comments apply to unions, exceptions, and enums, where the order
    in which members are presented is not necessarily the same order as in the IDL
    definition.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 24 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:20 GMT

Changebars missing from POA chapter

  • Legacy Issue Number: 2843
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Many changes between CORBA 2.2 and CORBA 2.3 are not changebarred. Some
    examples from the POA chapter (docs/formal/99-07-15.pdf):

    • Page 11-20: added PortableServer::POAManager::get_state() method.
    • Page 11-28: change in the TRANSIENT lifespan policy"s semantics
      (from "cannot outlive the process" to "cannot outlive the POA instance")
    • Page 11-35: change in PortableServer::POA::set_servant_manager()
      semantics wrt multiple invocations

    I wonder which other tidbits I"ve overlooked so far. Is there a complete
    list of changes (such as a CVS log) anywhere?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Sun, 15 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:
  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:20 GMT

Valuetype "copying" semantics underspecified?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3330
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    Core issue #1: The Core should explicitly state that valuetype
    parameters are copied for collocated interface invocations.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 18 Feb 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merge with issue 3364 and close this issue

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:37 GMT

Typo: "Wrongpolicy"

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3635
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    Page 11-47, reference_to_servant, uses "Wrongpolicy". That should be
    "WrongPolicy".

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Sun, 21 May 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate of 3634.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:37 GMT

destroy on POA

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3402
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Borland Software Corporation ( Andy Cutright)
  • Summary:

    ection 11.3.8.4 of the 2.3 spec states: "After all descendant POAs have
    been destroyed and their servants etherealized, the POA continues to
    process requests until there are no requests executing in the POA."

    does that mean new requests are rejected or that new requests for that
    POA are processed?

    also, if a parent POA is being destroyed, once a descendant has been
    destroyed, can an adapter activator be called for the descendant during
    this period? in the same paragraph, the spec says "After destruction has
    become apparent, the POA may be recreated .. via an Adapter Activator".
    should the request block, or can it be rejected?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Mon, 6 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed no change

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:37 GMT

Scope of inherited valuetype initializers

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3329
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: IONA ( Mark Spruiell)
  • Summary:

    Are the names of valuetype initializers introduced into the
    scope of a derived valuetype? I'm proposing that they are
    not introduced. The implication is that derived valuetypes
    are free to reuse the names of base type initializers.

    Proposed resolution:

    Change the last sentence of the first paragraph in 3.8.1.5:

    "The names of the initializers are part of the name scope of
    the value type, but are not part of the name scope of derived
    valuetypes."

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 17 Feb 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Same as Issue 3305, Therefore same resolution as 3305

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:37 GMT

Null valuetypes not supported by DynValue

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3250
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: IONA ( Mark Spruiell)
  • Summary:

    DynValue is missing support for null valuetypes. There is no
    way to determine whether a DynValue represents a null valuetype,
    nor is there any way to dynamically construct an Any containing
    a null valuetype.

    Proposed resolution:

    Add the following operations to the DynValue interface:

    boolean is_null();
    void set_to_null();
    void set_to_value();

    And replace the description of the interface with the following text:

    The DynValue interface can represent both null and non-null
    valuetypes. For a DynValue representing a non-null valuetype, the
    DynValue's components comprise the public and private members of
    the valuetype, including those inherited from concrete base valuetypes,
    in the order of definition. A DynValue representing a null valuetype
    has no components and a current position of -1.

    boolean is_null();

    The is_null operation returns TRUE if the DynValue represents
    a null valuetype.

    void set_to_null();

    The set_to_null operation changes the representation of a DynValue
    to a null valuetype. Specifically, the current components of the DynValue
    are destroyed, component_count returns zero and the current position is
    set to -1.

    void set_to_value();

    The set_to_value operation changes the representation of a DynValue
    to a non-null valuetype. The state of the DynValue is initialized
    exactly as if create_dyn_any_from_type_code had been invoked.
    The set_to_value operation has no effect when invoked on a DynValue
    representing a non-null valuetype.

    The remaining operations of the DynValue interface have equivalent
    semantics to DynStruct. When invoked on a DynValue representing a
    null valuetype, get_members and get_members_as_dyn_any return an empty
    sequence.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 25 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merge with 3135 and provide resolution as part of 3135

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:37 GMT

International Strings in Encapsulations

  • Key: CORBA25-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3221
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    It seems that the only time an international string will ever appear in an
    encapsulation
    would be a private IOR component.

    If we can keep the issue down to International strings in encapsulations
    this will
    simplify the solution.

    If anyone has an example of how any other GIOP header string could carry an
    international
    string please come forth with it quickly.

    The use of international strings in GIOP 1.1 and 1.2 is dependant on the
    asserted use
    of service context code set negotiation. In particular:
    1) if the negotiatiation is not initiated, then strings are passed
    as latin-1 only and wstrings are not allowed to be passed as parameters.
    2) If the negotiation is initated and successfully completed, the
    agreed codesets are used
    respectively for string and wstring
    3) If negotiation is initated by no comon codeset is agreed, then
    UTF-8 is the default for
    string and UTF-16 is the default for Wstring (note: the current codeset
    negotiation does not
    discuss the big endian or litte endian aspects of UTF-16).

    There is also text somewhere in GIOP stating that Encapsulations in IORs
    should be
    encoded in giop 1.0 for maximum interoperability.

    It just occured to me that disallowing international strings in IOR
    encapsulations (i.e., private
    IOR components) is equivalent to assuming that negotiation is not initiated
    for encapsulations.
    This seems to be a consistent set of semantics.

    The only problem with this interpretation, is that it does not allow
    international strings
    in IOR encapsulations.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Mon, 17 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed in interop/2000-05-01

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:37 GMT

Expected behavior of POA configured with ServantLocator receiving LocateRe

  • Legacy Issue Number: 2791
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: This is an issue with the Portable Object Adapter:

    If a POA configured with a ServantLocator receives a LocateRequest, what
    is the expected behavior? A ServantLocator expects to receive an operation
    name as a parameter to preinvoke() and postinvoke(), but there is no
    operation name in a LocateRequest.

    We could just return a true response to the LocateRequest and not involve
    the ServantLocator. That might mislead the sender though. If the sender
    received a true response and then sent a message they might get an
    OBJECT_NOT_EXIST exception back.

    We could pass an operation name like "_locate" to the manager. That would
    let the manager know that a location request was being processed, and the
    underscore would signify that it is an internal message since it"s not a
    _get or _set.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Thu, 8 Jul 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add a subsection to section 11.3.6 specifying "_locate" and its usage.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:37 GMT

The insert_dyn_any and get_dyn_any operations are barely documented

  • Legacy Issue Number: 2615
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: 1) The insert_dyn_any and get_dyn_any operations are barely documented. It
    seems the only explanation is given on 9-15: "The get_dyn_any and
    insert_dyn_any operations are provided to deal with any values that contain
    another any." The insert_dyn_any function should be specified as behaving
    identically to insert_any, except that it allows an any in the form of a
    DynAny to be inserted. The get_dyn_any should be specified as behaving
    identically to get_any, except that it returns its result in the form of a
    DynAny rather than an any.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Tue, 20 Apr 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    "The get_dyn_any and

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:37 GMT

WRONG_TRANSACTION

  • Legacy Issue Number: 2218
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: WRONG_TRANSACTION Exception

    The CosTransactions module adds the WRONG_TRANSACTION exception
    that can be raised by the ORB when returning the response to a
    deferred synchronous request. This exception is defined in Chapter 4
    of the Common Object Request Broker: Architecture and Specification.
    This para doesn"t state what module is to be used for
    WRONG_TRANSACTION. I assume what is meant is that it should be
    a system exception?

    • I can"t find this exception in either chapter 4 or chapter 3
      of the 2.3 spec. Looks like it needs to be added. I don"t know
      why the above para refers to chapter 4 though – it seems that
      this exception should be added to the list of system exceptions
      in chapter 3?
  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 17 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    issue merged with issue1963

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:37 GMT

Proposal on floating point fixes

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1667
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: I"m preparing a proposal to "fix" fixed point types, but I"d like to
    outline what I am thinking before I have it completed, in order to give
    people a chance to comment.
    Michi has pointed out a few issues with the fixed point constant
    grammar, but I think I can resolve those pretty easily by making changes
    so that fixed point constants are only allowed to be defined using the
    syntax:

    const fixed FOO = 1.2D;

    Some people have expressed the idea that the fixed point type
    specification is lacking sufficient semantic content, and they are
    afraid that since different languages or even implementations of
    languages might do the math differently that portability or
    interoperability is affected. Frankly, I don"t see the problem as
    serious for the CORE RTF. In most cases, the fixed point type is mapped
    to the native fixed point facility of the language. If that isn"t
    sufficiently robust to support stuff like banking applications, the CORE
    RTF can"t do much to fix it anyway.

    For the C++ RTF:

    For the C++ binding, of course, things are broken. However, I think I
    may have a solution to the problem:

    First, define a new class CORBA::FixedValue which is used as the results
    of all of the Fixed arithmetic operations, as well as for the type for
    fixed point constants. FixedValue would store the digits and scale
    information dynamically. All of the defined fixed point types would be
    convertable from/to the FixedValue type, with the DATA_CONVERSION
    exception available to signal overflow.

    Second, get rid of the explicit reference to a template type. Since the
    grammar will be changed to no longer allow anonymous fixed point
    declarations (as parameter types), there is no longer a specific need to
    define the exact type name for the Fixed types, and in fact,
    implementations no longer must implement fixed as a template type.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 13 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:37 GMT

OBV, value-reference substitution, Multiple Inheritance

  • Legacy Issue Number: 2258
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Hi, is it possible to pass a supporting value type by value when used as
    a interface? It looks like this is droped from the OBV spec
    (ptc/98-10-06.pdf says when a supporting value type is used as a
    interface then an object reference will be used).

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 15 Dec 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:37 GMT

Object::is_a

  • Legacy Issue Number: 551
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Some ORBs are sloppy about existence. One ORB used raises INV_OBJREV whenever object doesn"t exist, even when server can be reached. Behavior is compliant..tighten spec here.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Tue, 22 Apr 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    close no change in 2.4

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:37 GMT

DII operations "get_response and get_next_response

  • Legacy Issue Number: 464
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Both operations permit the flag CORBA::RESP_NO_WAIT to be set. How is is invoker being informed that there is no response available? Incorrect to use exception.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Wed, 18 Dec 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, closed issue

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:37 GMT

Section 3.3.8.16:deactivate_object() operation

  • Legacy Issue Number: 675
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section states that the deactivate_object() operation doesn"t wait for etherialize operation to complete before it returns. This is impossible to implement in single-threaded ORB

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Wed, 13 Aug 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:37 GMT

6.5.6. Repository Paragraph 2 - objection

  • Legacy Issue Number: 434
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Para indicates that there may be more than 1 interface Repository in any given environment. How can portable application determine this, and how can it determine what the requirements are?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    the application should use either the naming or trading service to determine which IR to use.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:37 GMT

New core issue: need UNKNOWN reply status

  • Key: CORBA26-96
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4747
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Ken Cavanaugh)
  • Summary:

    The Java RTF recently passed a resolution to fix some problems with the
    use of portable interceptors with the co-located call optimization. This
    resolution introduced a new abstract class ServantObjectExt that extends
    org.omg.CORBA.portable.ServantObject with methods for reporting
    normal and exceptional completion of the co-located call.

    When we look at the issue of mixed versions of stubs and ORBs with
    this change, there is one case that is particularly interesting:
    an old stub (uses only ServantObject) with a new ORB (provides
    ServantObjectExt). In this case, the ORB can detect that an old
    stub was used, because neither one of the two new methods was called.
    However, this leaves the ORB with no way to report the reply status
    correctly in the RequestInfo::reply_status attribute.

    To handle this special case, I propose that we add a new value of
    UNKNOWN for the reply status. This will only be used if the ORB
    cannot determine the reply status of an operation. This occurs
    with any co-located optimized call with the existing Java mapping.
    With the passage of the resolution to issue 4701, the scope of
    this occurence is smaller but still possible.

    Revised text:

    In section 21.3.12.10, add after PortableInterceptor::TRANSPORT_RETRY:

    PortableInterceptor::UNKNOWN

    In section 21.3.12.10, replace the third bullet under client with:

    Within the receive_other interception point, this attribute will
    be any of: SUCCESSFUL, LOCATION_FORWARD, TRANSPORT_RETRY, or UNKNOWN.
    SUCCESSFUL means an asynchronous request returned successfully.
    LOCATION_FORWARD means that a reply came back with LOCATION_FORWARD
    as its status. TRANSPORT_RETRY means that the transport mechanism
    indicated a retry - a GIOP reply with a status of NEEDS_ADDRESSING_MODE,
    for instance. UNKNOWN means that the ORB was unable to determine
    the correct status. This can occur for example in the Java language
    mapping when the optimized path for a co-located call is used.

    In section 21.3.12.10, replace the third bullet under server with:

    Within the send_other interception point, this attribute will
    be any of: SUCCESSFUL, LOCATION_FORWARD, or UNKNOWN.
    SUCCESSFUL means an asynchronous request returned successfully.
    LOCATION_FORWARD means that a reply came back with LOCATION_FORWARD
    as its status. UNKNOWN means that the ORB was unable to determine
    the correct status. This can occur for example in the Java language
    mapping when the optimized path for a co-located call is used.

    In section 21.10, add the following after const ReplyStatus TRANSPORT_RETRY = 4:

    const ReplyStatus UNKNOWN = 5;

  • Reported: CORBA 2.5 — Wed, 12 Dec 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

TypeCode interface issue

  • Key: CORBA26-98
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4803
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The section concerning with the TypeCode interface was removed from the Interface Repository chapter into the ORB Interface chapter, but the Minimum CORBA chapter refers to it in the old place.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.5 — Thu, 10 Jan 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

Valuetype initialzers need exceptions

  • Key: CORBA26-97
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4785
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Jishnu Mukerji [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    Valuetype initializers need exception declarations in order to provide
    complete mapping of Java declarations to IDL declarations in Java to IDL
    mapping.

    Discussion: This was discussed in te past and rejected because of the
    backward non-compatible changes required in the IFR. This time
    around.... the IFR changes are already part of the backward compatible
    changes maded in connection with the addition of exeptions to attributes
    etc in CCM in resolution to issue 3233. So all that is needed is change
    to one grammar rule and provision of language mappings. As the results
    of Components FTF is merged into Core to create CORBA Core 3.0
    everything then falls into place to give us initializers with exceptions
    for valuetypes.

    Issue 3641 in Java-IDL RTF is handling the Java language mapping issue,
    and Simon is shepherding that.

    We need to create a C++ language mapping issue and resolve it with the
    obvious mapping in C++ (Michi?)

    Specfic text changes:

    All changes specified here relative to document ptc/01-06-10:

    1. On page 3-13 change grammar production rule 23 to read:

    (23) <init_dcl> ::= “factory” <identifier>
    “(“ [ <init_param_decls> ] “)” [ <raises_expr> ] “;”

    instead of:

    (23) <init_dcl> ::= “factory” <identifier>
    “(“ [ <init_param_decls> ] “)” “;”

    2. On page 3-26 in section 3.8.1.5 change grammar production
    rule 23 to read:

    (23) <init_dcl> ::= “factory” <identifier>
    “(“ [ <init_param_decls> ] “)” [ <raises_expr> ] “;”

    instead of:

    (23) <init_dcl> ::= “factory” <identifier>
    “(“ [ <init_param_decls> ] “)” “;”

  • Reported: CORBA 2.5 — Mon, 17 Dec 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accept the proposed change based on discussion above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

Syntax error in CORBA IDL

  • Key: CORBA26-95
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4742
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Humboldt-Universitaet ( Martin von Loewis)
  • Summary:

    In formal/01-11-01.txt, the second occurrence of create_native reads

    NativeDef create_native(
    in RepositoryId id,
    in Identifier name,
    in VersionSpec version,
    );

    This is incorrect; the comma after version must be removed.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.5 — Sun, 9 Dec 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

Incorrect example for recursive definitions which can span multiple levels

  • Key: CORBA25-54
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4261
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Incorrect example for recursive definitions which can span multiple levels. I and my IDL compiler are missing an identifier in the following example union for the last struct member.

    union Bar; // Forward declaration typedef sequence<Bar> BarSeq; union Bar switch(long) { // Define forward-declared union case 0: long l_mem; case 1: struct Foo

    { double d_mem; BarSeq nested;// OK, recurse on enclosing type being defined }

    ?identifier missing?; };

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Mon, 9 Apr 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    This has already been fixed in the previous RTF see orbrev/2001-03-01

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

Definition of TRANSIENT minor code 1 confusing

  • Legacy Issue Number: 4036
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    >From CORBA 2.4, Table 4-3: TRANSIENT minor code 1 is described as:

    "Request discarded due to resource exhaustion in POA."

    However, section 11.3.2.1 states that minor code 1 is used when the
    POAManager is in the DISCARDING state.

    I think it would be better to reword this description as:

    "Request discarded because POAManager is in DISCARDING state (e.g.
    server lacks resources to complete request.)"

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Thu, 9 Nov 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Make it so

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

IDL format for RepositoryId

  • Legacy Issue Number: 4035
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: UBS ( Karsten Starr)
  • Summary:

    Following statement in CORBA V2.3 (06/1999),
    P10-39, Chapter 10.6.1, OMG IDL Format concerning
    the OMG IDL format for Repository IDs:

    >> The RepositoryId consists of three components, separated by
    colons, (":")

    The first component is the format name, "IDL."

    The second component is a list of identifiers, separated by
    "/" characters.

    These identifiers are arbitrarily long sequences of alpha-
    betic, digit, underscore ("_"), hyphen ("-"), and period (".")
    characters. Typically, the first identifier is a unique prefix,
    and the rest are OMG IDL Identifiers that make up the scoped
    name of the definition. <<

    There are two issues here:

    • Firstly I propose to change >>"IDL."<< into >>"IDL".<<
    • Furthermore, I propose be more specific on the definition
      of the Repository Id. The above definition does not
      exclude a RepositoryId in the following style (which
      in my opinion does not make sense and effects inter-
      operability between ORBs): "IDL:/A/B:1.0"
      A regular expression could clarifiy this issue:
  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Thu, 9 Nov 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

Valuetypes supporting local interfaces are local types?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 4031
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Borland Software Corporation ( Vijaykumar Natarajan)
  • Summary:

    The semantics for local interfaces states:

    A valuetype may support a local interface.

    This brings up two questions.
    1. Can it support multiple? In addition to a unconstrained non abstract
    interface?
    2. Does it then become a local type (I think not, I think it becomes a
    local type only when it contains state that is a local type)

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

#pragma version issue

  • Legacy Issue Number: 4016
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: AT&T ( Duncan Grisby)
  • Summary:

    In the CORBA 2.4 spec, chapter 10, the definition of #pragma ID has
    been modified so that later re-declarations of the same ID for a type
    are permitted. Before, it was explicitly an error to use #pragma ID
    for a type more than once, even if the same IDs were given.

    The section of #pragma version has not been updated. This means that
    handling of the two similar pragmas is now inconsistent:

    interface A {};
    #pragma ID A "LOCAL:foo"
    #pragma ID A "LOCAL:foo" // OK in 2.4, error in 2.3

    interface B {};
    #pragma version B 3.4
    #pragma version B 3.4 // Error in 2.4 and 2.3

    Should #pragma version be updated to be consistent with #pragma ID?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Fri, 3 Nov 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

Servant deactivation callback?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 4014
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    Consider a servant for a persistent object that sits in front of a database.
    Assume a simple implementation model, using RETAIN and
    USE_ACTIVE_OBJECT_MAP_ONLY.

    We have n CORBA objects with n servants, and each servant implements
    its operations by reading/writing through to the persistent store, possibly
    also caching some state and maintaining other resources, such as database
    connections or memory buffers.

    I want to implement a life cycle destroy() operation. In the body of
    destroy, I have to write something like:

    void
    Foo_impl::
    destroy() throw(CORBA::SystemException)

    { my_poa->deactivate_object(my_oid); // Cannot remove database record here or do any other // cleanup. }

    The problem is that the servant can't simply blow things away at that
    point because there may be other operations running concurrently in the
    same servant, and those operations would get awfully surprised if their
    state suddenly disappeared.

    So, I delay reclaiming resources and deleting the database record until
    the servant becomes idle. In C++, that's no problem. Eventually, the
    servant's AOM entry disappears and (at least if I use reference-counted
    servants) that triggers the destructor of the servant, and I can
    clean up in the destructor.

    However, it appears that this doesn't work for other languages because they
    may not have destructors or, like Java, make no guarantees about when
    the destructor will be called.

    The problem is that there is no way for me to find out at what
    point the servant becomes idle, so that I could clean up.

    I think we need a callback from the ORB to the server application code that
    notifies the server when a servant finally becomes idle. Otherwise, it is
    pretty much impossible to implement life cycle support in languages other
    than C++, especially for threaded servers.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

DynUnion incomplete

  • Legacy Issue Number: 4005
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    given the a DynUnion value, I want to find out whether the discriminator
    currently indicates the default case. For example:

    union u switch (long)

    { case 0: long l; case 1: char c; case 2: double d; default: float f; }

    ;

    For this union, I want to know whether the default member is active, that is,
    whether the discriminator has a value other than 0, 1, or 2.

    Finding out whether the discriminator indicates the default case is currently
    rather difficult. I have to:

    1) get the union type code
    2) collect the values of all the explicit case labels from
    the type code
    3) check if the discriminator currently has a value that is not
    one of the explicit case labels values

    It would be much nicer to add the following to DynUnion:

    interface DynUnion : DynAny

    { boolean is_set_to_default_case(); // ... }

    ;

    The is_set_to_default_case operation returns true if a union has
    an explicit default label and the discriminator value does not
    match any of the union's other case labels.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4 — Mon, 30 Oct 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add the is_set_to_default_member function with the functionality as described for is_set_to_default_

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

Format of RMI Hashed Format repid

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3970
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: hursley.ibm.com ( Simon Nash)
  • Summary:

    The format of the "hash code" element of an RMI Hashed Format repid
    needs to be clarified. Section 10.6.2 gives the algorithm for computing
    the 64-bit number to be used as the hash code, but does not specify the
    on-the-wire format for this number. In contrast, the spec explicitly
    states that the 64-bit number representing the SUID is transcribed as
    a 16-digit upper-case hex string.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4 — Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify as suggested below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

Typo: "Wrongpolicy"

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3634
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    Page 11-47, reference_to_servant, uses "Wrongpolicy". That should be
    "WrongPolicy".

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Sun, 21 May 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Editorial, fixed editorially in 2.4

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

Minor typo

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3621
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Pages 11-30 (twice), 11-31 (three times), and 11-52 (once) mention
    the OBJECT_ADAPTER exception. That's wrong – it should be OBJ_ADAPTER.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 18 May 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Editorial, fixed editorially in 2.4

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

Section 4.3.7.1 get_client_policy?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3582
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    Section 4.3.7.1 refers to a get_client_policy operation, but it is not
    defined anywhere in the CORBA specification.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    temporary bug....fixed, and issue closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

Typo on page 7-9 of 2.3.1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3564
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    Page 7-9 of 2.3.1 shows

    boolean poll_response(in Request req);

    However, on page 7-5, we have:

    boolean poll_response();

    The version on page 7-5 is the correct one because poll_response() is
    an operation on Request.

    Proposal:

    Change the signature on page 7-9 to read:

    boolean poll_response();

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 14 Apr 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue...editorial

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

BAD_QOS system exception

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3337
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: IONA ( Matthew Newhook)
  • Summary:

    This system exception is listed in the notification specification but
    does not exist in CORBA 2.3 (nor CORBA 2.0 AFAIK).

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Mon, 21 Feb 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue, available in current draft

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:37 GMT

attributes and system exceptions

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3219
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    The components spec permits attributes to raise user exceptions, to
    bring them in line with operations. That's a really nice idea, but
    raises yet another versioning problem. In particular, no new IDL that
    uses an attribute with a raises clause can be compiled by an older IDL
    compiler. (Simply deleting the raises clause and then compiling with
    an older compiler is risky at best – marshaling code won't in general
    expect to get a user exception in reply to accessing an attribute...)

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 18 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    withdrawn by submitter

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:37 GMT

why was is_abstract added to structs in CORBA IR?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3015
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    I was wondering if anyone can explain the rationale for adding the field
    'is_abstract' to the CORBA::InterfaceDescription and
    CORBA::InterfaceDef::FullInterfaceDescription struct types in the CORBA
    2.3 Interface Repository specification. (I do know about abstract interfaces,
    I am really looking for the rationale for breaking backwards compabitility).

    Basically, a CORBA 2.3 client using stubs compiled from the latest IDL cannot
    interoperate using IIOP with the Interface Repository of a pre-CORBA 2.3 ORB,
    because virtually any client of the IR will want to obtain a
    FullInterfaceDescription from an InterfaceDef, and a pre-CORBA 2.3 ORB will
    not marshal the 'is_abstract' field for the description struct, thereby the
    CORBA 2.3 client will fail to unmarshal the struct.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 9 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    flagged as urgent....resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:37 GMT

Null Value semantics under specified

  • Legacy Issue Number: 2817
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Objective Interface Systems ( Mr. Victor Giddings)
  • Summary:

    he description of null value semantics (in ptc/99-03-07) is insufficient to ensure an adequate mapping to an
    implementation language. Issues that should be specified include: - Creation. How are null values created? Are all declared (but
    uninitialized) values born null? Is this a language mapping requirement or allowance? - Invocation. Presumably invoking an
    operation ON a null value should result in an exception. But, what exception? Shouldn't the exception be specified for application
    portability? - Passing. Presumably, it is allowable to provide a null value as the actual parameter for a non member operation (i.e.,
    not on itself). True? - Typing: are null values typed, untyped, or is this governed by the language mapping? - Substitutability (see
    "typing" above): – Presumably: a null value may be successfully widened to a null value of an ancestor stateful value type. True?
    – Can a null value be successfully widened to a (null) supporting concrete interface? (Can a null value be activated as a servant?)
    – Can a null value be successfully widened to a (null) supporting abstract interface? – Can a null value be successfully widened
    to a (null) ancestor abstract value type? The only mentions of null values currently are: - the bullet in 5.2 - 5.2.4.2

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Wed, 21 Jul 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    close issue, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:37 GMT

DynFactory or DynAnyFactory?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 2617
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Page 9-10 of the new DynAny draft says that you pass "DynFactory" to
    resolve_initial_references() to get a DynAnyFactory. The third comment on
    page 9-2, however, says the string should be "DynAnyFactory". I believe the
    latter is correct.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Tue, 20 Apr 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:37 GMT

is_abstract parameter missing from create_interface() IDL

  • Legacy Issue Number: 2579
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: I noticed the IDL for Container in ptc/98-12-04, page 10-59 is missing
    is_abstract parameter in create_interface() operation.
    The instance on page 10-16 does include it.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Thu, 8 Apr 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:37 GMT

Destruction of ORB

  • Legacy Issue Number: 2254
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: how is the ORB object destroyed? There is no ORB::destroy() operation,
    like for the POA. (With "destroy", I mean to remove it from memory
    (C++), or to allow it to be garbage collected (Java).)

    Is shutdown to be meant to destroy the ORB? If so, then this must be
    clarified in the specification. For example, if shutdown() destroys the
    ORB, all subsequent calls to ORB operations (via ORB references) must
    raise OBJECT_NOT_EXIST, just as it is with any other (locality
    constrained) object.

    If shutdown() does not destroy the ORB, but just shuts down
    communications and stops handling of further requests, then some other
    operation is needed to destroy the ORB.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 14 Dec 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

OMG VMCID

  • Legacy Issue Number: 2000
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Well, it looks like I get to choose what OMG"s VMCID is going to be. My
    > current thoughts are to allocate 65613 as OMG"s VMCID. This will make
    > the minor code value unsigned long appear on the wire as \x00, "M",
    > \x0<e>, <E>; where <e> is the high four bits of the minor code and <E>
    > is the lower 8 bits of the minor code.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 29 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

New proposal for recursive TypeCode creation

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1967
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The basic problem of creating recursive TypeCodes has become more
    complex with the addition of valuetypes. The current mechanism for
    creating TypeCodes (as adopted by the last RTF) cannot create
    TypeCodes for a large number of cases, and can be quite confusing.
    The new proposal solves the problem of creating recursive TypeCodes in
    general and would deprecate all existing mechanisms for creating
    recursive TypeCodes.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 17 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

deactivate_object page no: 9-35

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1950
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: deactivate_object page no: 9-35

    void deactivate_object(in Objectid oid)
    raises (ObjectNotActive,WrongPolicy)

    If a servant manager is associated with the poa, ServantLocator:: etherealize will be invoked with the oid and the servant.
    It should be ServantActivator::etherealize instead of ServantLocator:: etherealize.

    The Note of deactivate object it should be ServantActivator::etherealize instead of ServantLocator:: etherealize

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 15 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Typo on pages 10-53, 10-55, and 10-70

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1944
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The create_value_tc() api and C++ example use ValueMembersSeq, but the name
    should match the ValueMemberSeq ( no "s" after Member) definition given on page
    10-33 & 10-65

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 11 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Proposal for creating recursive TypeCodes

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1928
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: We have spent some time pondering the various issues surrounding
    recursive TypeCodes and OBV, and have come up with a proposed
    solution. This is not a formal proposal (it does not include actual
    changes to the CORBA spec) and is intended mostly to promote
    discussion.

    For this discussion a recursive TypeCode is defined as a TypeCode
    which contains data members which refer to the containing type or any
    type containing the containg type.

    The basic problem of creating recursive TypeCodes has become more
    complex with the addition of valuetypes. The current mechanism for
    creating TypeCodes (as adopted by the last RTF) cannot create
    TypeCodes for a large number of cases, and can be quite confusing.
    The new proposal solves the problem of creating recursive TypeCodes in
    general and would deprecate all existing mechanisms for creating
    recursive TypeCodes.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 2 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Missing orb.idl

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1796
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: It appears that during the editing for the POA changes for 2.2, Appendix A
    of the old BOA chapter was dropped without a trace. As a result, it looks
    like the definition for the orb.idl include file has disappeared.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 11 Aug 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Types defined in the CORBA module?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1797
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Where am I supposed to pick up the types defined in the CORBA module,
    such as CORBA::Identifier, if I want to use them in my IDL?

    The (now apparently missing) orb.idl file gave me access to the
    TypeCode interface and the IFR interfaces, but mentioned nothing about
    other types defined in the CORBA module.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 11 Aug 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    :Identifier, if I want to use them in my IDL?

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Size of IDL char

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1753
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The IDL chapter says on page 3-24:

    OMG IDL defines a char data type that is an 8-bit quantity which...

    This seems to imply that chars must map to an 8-bit type in the target
    language. Not all CPUs can do this. For example, on a Cray, chars are a
    32-bit type.

    I would suggest to remove the size requirement.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 30 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Incorrect LifeCycle IDL?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1772
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 6.2 of formal/98-07-05 mentions

    typedef Naming::Name Key;

    I believe it should be CosNaming::Name instead.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 4 Aug 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Proposed change to IDL in section 3.10.2, page 3-32 "Parameter Declaration

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1728
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Firstly, in Section 3.10.2, "Parameter Declarations" on
    page 3-32, the last paragraph states:

    When an unbounded string or sequence is passed as an
    inout parameter, the returned value cannot be longer
    than the input value.

    This seems like an undesirable and unnecessary restriction to me.
    Is there any chance that you could remove this restriction in a
    future version of the specification? Alternatively, if there is
    a good reason for this restriction then perhaps you could document
    it in a future revision of the specification.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 23 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

CosObjectIdentity::ObjectIdentifiers can"t be UUIDs?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1725
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Does anyone know why the CosObjectIdentity::ObjectIdentifier was changed
    from "typedef sequence<octet,16>" to "typedef unsigned long"? This
    happened some time ago between the 3/94 and 3/95 versions of the
    CosRelationships specification.

    It seems odd since the earlier version could support the 128 bit UUIDs
    used in DCE and the 128 bit GUIDs found in Microsoft but the current
    version is only one quarter the size. Also, all available literature I
    can find on the topic indicates that the 128 bit version is necessary
    for uniqueness "across space and time". In large distributed object
    environments, I don"t think the 32 bit version will cut it.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 23 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Illegal IDL in CosTime module

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1688
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The IDL in module CosTime for the compare_time and
    time_to_interval operations is illegal. Reference
    http://www.omg.org/archives/experts/msg00890.html
    for further information.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 16 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

TypeCode comparison proposal (02)

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1623
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: 10. Define two new operations on TypeCodes:

    pseudo interface TypeCode

    { ... TypeCode get_compact_typecode(); TypeCode get_canonical_typecode(); ... }

    ;

    TypeCode::get_compact_typecode() strips out all optional name & member
    name fields. TypeCode::get_canonical_typecode() looks up the TypeCode
    in the Interface Repository and returns the fully fleshed-out TypeCode.
    If the top level TypeCode does not contain a RepositoryId, (such as
    array and sequence TypeCodes, or TypeCodes from older ORBs), then a new
    TypeCode is constructed by calling TypeCode::get_canonical_typecode() on
    each member TypeCode of the original TypeCode. If the Interface
    Repository is unavailable, or does not contain the information needed,
    the call raises the INTF_REPOS system exception.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 1 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

TypeCode comparison proposal (01)

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1622
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Points 1 through 9 need to be considered as one unit. Point 10 can be
    voted on independently, but does provide a useful capability for
    controlling the size and content of TypeCodes.

    Proposal:

    1. Make RepositoryIds mandatory for all TypeCodes that have them. [This
    was done by the previous core RTF. I am just reiterating it here for
    completeness.]

    2. All TypeCode constants generated by the IDL compiler, as well as all
    TypeCodes returned by the Interface Repository must include alias
    TypeCodes wherever a typedef declaration appears in the original IDL
    source.

    3. Each IDL programming language mapping must provide a mechanism for
    the programmer to ensure that values of the IDL any type contain the
    exact typecode desired by the programmer.

    4. The name() and member_name() fields of the TypeCode are for
    documentary purposes only, and are never considered significant when
    comparing TypeCodes.

    5. Define a new equivalent operation for TypeCodes:

    pseudo interface TypeCode

    { ... boolean equivalent(in TypeCode other); ... }

    ;

    with the following semantics:

    a) If the two TypeCodes are the same primitive type (null, void, short,
    long, ushort, ulong, float, double, boolean, char, octet, any, TypeCode,
    longlong, ulonglong, longdouble, wchar) then equivalent() returns true.

    b) If the two TypeCodes are string, wstring or fixed with the same
    parameters (bounds, digits or scale) then equivalent() returns true.

    c) If the two TypeCodes are both arrays or both sequences, with the
    same bounds and their component types are equivalent(), then
    equivalent() returns true.

    d) If the two TypeCodes are both object references, return true if the
    their RepositoryIds are the same.

    e) If the two TypeCodes are both structs, exceptions, unions, enums or
    aliases, and they have the same RepositoryId, then equivalent() returns
    true. Note in this case that member TypeCodes are not compared.

    f) If either or both of the TypeCodes have an empty RepositoryId, then
    equivalent() falls back to a structural comparison, and returns true if
    all members of the two TypeCodes also are equivalent(). This case will
    only occur when interoperating with an older ORB that does not yet
    require RepositoryIds as mandatory for these TypeCodes. Note that the
    name() and member_name() fields are not used in this comparison.

    g) Otherwise, equivalent() returns false.

    6. The ORB uses TypeCode::equivalent for all internal TypeCode
    comparisons, such as for supporting any (and thus DII and DSI) and
    DynAny.

    7. If the programmer needs to distinguish between a type and/or
    different aliases of that type, he can call TypeCode::id() and compare
    the RepositoryIds.

    8. All DynAny insert & get operations do not consider aliases as
    significant. The type() operation however, will return the TypeCode
    with all of the aliases intact, including type() from any DynAny member
    components. DynAny::assign() and DynAny::from_any compare the internal
    TypeCode of the DynAny with the TypeCode of its argument using
    TypeCode::equivalent() and raise Invalid if equivalent() returns false.

    9. The TypeCode::equal() operation is not used internally by the ORB
    and is deprecated.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 1 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Description of Wide String type

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1612
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Null termination is a marshalling and language mapping issue and should not
    appear as part of the semantic description of the IDL type. It should be
    completely valid for a language with a native wide string type to handle the
    varying length nature of the wide string with or without use of null
    termination and certainly without exposing it to the user. Therefore, the
    description of the wide string type in 3.8.3 should not mention null
    termination.

    Also the syntax should be included.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 29 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

name scoping issue

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1587
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In the course of a discussion Philippe Gautron pointed out to me that in
    ISO-C++, the scope of a class begins with its declaration, and hence a
    member or type declaration in the class may not introduce the same name
    as that of the class, exception being constructors of the class.
    Analogous rules apply to struct and namespace. When this principle is
    extended to the case insensitivity of IDL a consequence is that

    interface I

    { void i(); }

    ;

    is illegal as is:

    module M {
    interface m

    {....}

    ;
    };

    The basic rule is that the name of the scope, if it has one is
    implicitly inserted into the scope and hence cannot be reused for other
    purposes in that scope. Given that IDL has to be mapped to C++ this
    seems like an eminently reasonable restriction. However, I could not
    find this explicitly stated anywhere. Do y"all feel this is reasonable?
    If so, and if it is indeed not mentioned then I think we should add a
    line or two in 3.13 clarifying this?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 26 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

IDL struct issue

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1585
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: IDL structs are specified to have "one or more" members rather than
    "zero or more".

    Whilst it might be argued from a stylistic point of view that an empty
    struct is of limited use, of should be avoided, there are places where
    it may be desirable to specify a placeholder struct for later expansion,
    or for machine generated code where there happens to be nothing to fill
    the struct with.

    I can see no compelling technical reasons for requiring that a struct
    contain at least one member, so I propose that the grammar be revised to
    alow for a struct with zero members.

    Such a change would not break any existing IDL.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 26 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Type codes cannot describe all unions

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1545
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Fix this by stating that member_label returns an Any containing
    a sequence of labels if a single member has more than label.

    Add a typedef to the TypeCode pseudo-IDL:

    typedef sequence<any> LabelSeq;

    A sequence of this type would be contained in the Any returned by
    member_label() if a member has multiple labels (this avoids changing the
    signature of member_label()).

    For the above union, the member_count() operation would return 2, not 5.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 24 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Type code operations under-specified

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1542
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: On page 8-38:

    Member_count [sic] returns the number of members
    constituting the type.

    This is a little ambiguous and easily confused with the number of parameters.
    For clarity, I would suggest to add a sentence to make this clearer, e.g.
    "For example, the member count of a structure with three members is three."

    This would help to avoid confusion with parameters (if I am not careful,
    I might think the number is six, because a the three members of a structure
    are described by six parameters, or I might think that the number is nine,
    because a three-member structure has a total of nine parameters).

    The origin for the index to the member_name operation is never defined.
    Presumably, indexes start at zero? If so, this must be stated.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 24 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Type code typos (as only one issue)

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1541
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: There are a few typos in the spec for type codes.

    Page 8-40:

    A structure with N members results in a tk_struct TypeCode with
    2N+1 parameters.

    This is no longer correct. Because of the Repository ID parameter that
    was added, this is now 2N+2.

    Similar fixes need to be applied to the text for unions (3N+3 parameters,
    not 3N+2), enumerations (N+2 parameters instead of N+1 as implied by
    the text), and aliases (they have three parameters, not two).

    The text for tk_objref also needs updating, because it states that
    it has one parameter instead of two.

    Also, Table 7-1 for tk_objref should be updated because it is internally
    inconsistent.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 24 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Typo in chapter 8

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1537
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Table 8-1 on page 3-39 of the CORBA spec contains a typo.
    "tx_fixed" should be "tk_fixed".

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 23 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Does the DII support the standard object operations?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1422
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: There are two types of standard operations: ones that are transmitted
    over the wire, and ones that are not. Now it seems reasonable to
    support the over-the-wire operations via the DII, such as "is_a",
    "non_existent", "get_interface" and "get_implementation" (obsolete), but
    what about the ones that don"t go over the wire:

    hash
    is_equivalent
    get_policy
    get_domain_managers

    I would guess that the DII should not support these operations, but the
    spec does not explicitly say that. So, should we add a statement to the
    DII part of the spec that an attempt to invoke these non-over-the-wire
    operations should raise BAD_OPERATION?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 2 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Typos in IR IDL in Specification (03)

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1396
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: - Section 8.8 page 8-48: remove incorrect "};" between "create_array" and
    "create_fixed".

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 20 May 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Typos in IR IDL in Specification (050

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1398
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: - Section 8.8 page 8-55: change "element type" to "element_type" in
    operation create_sequence_tc.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 20 May 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Typos in IR IDL in Specification (04)

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1397
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: - Section 8.8 page 8-53: add "," after "tk_except" in definition of TCKind.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 20 May 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Typos in IR IDL in spec (01)

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1394
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The following problems appear in the 2.2 spec (98-02-23) and the IDL
    summary extracted from it (98-03-01.idl).

    • Section 8.8 page 8-45: need forward declaration of ExceptionDef, i.e.,
      "interface ExceptionDef" before use on page 8-47. There are a number of
      forward declarations in the middle of 8-45 that would seem to be the
      logical place for it.
  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 20 May 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Typos in IR IDL in Specification (02)

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1395
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: - Section 8.8 page 8-47: need forward declarations of WstringDef and
    FixedDef before use on page 8-48. Again, it would seem that they were
    left out of the list of forward declarations on 8-47.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 20 May 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

/ in prefix pragma?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1241
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: currently, #pragma prefix is completely unconstrained and can contain
    any character. This includes potentially troublesome things such as space
    and "/", or non-printing characters.

    I would suggest to define a syntax for #pragma prefix. In particular, I think
    that "/" should be forbidden in a prefix. This is because otherwise, given
    a repository ID, I cannot work out where the prefix ends and the scoped
    name starts. In addition, things that cannot normally be part of file names
    or identifiers should probably be forbidden as well, otherwise we could
    get problems with things like the class path in Java.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 27 Apr 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Versioning by the back door?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1164
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: I"ve always been under the impression that CORBA does not have versioning.
    it looks like we
    actually do have versioning. Could someone please let me know what
    the correct interpretation should be? Has this versioning stuff sort
    of quietly snuck in via the back door?

    I find this section of the spec particularly stunning because a few pages
    earlier, it says about #pragma directives:

    An IDL compiler must eithe rinterpret these annotations
    as specified, or ignore them completely.

    So, on the one hand, we can happily ignore #pragma, and a few pages
    later, we go and add semantics to the version pragma?!

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

GIOP typo, section 4.2 (page 4.4) of CORBA 2.2

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1160
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 4.2 (page 4.4) of the corba 2.2 spec defines a "non_existent" operation
    on CORBA::Object. In Section 13.4.1 (page 13-23) it sates that the operation
    name for such a request is encoded as the string "_not_existent". This latter
    string looks like a typo, and we propose to change this (on page 13.23) to
    "_non_existent".

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    :Object. In Section 13.4.1 (page 13-23) it sates that the operation

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Domain Manager related specification shortcomings (03)

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1155
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: 3) There is no way at present to implement the
    Object:get_domain_managers operation in an interoperable fashion. To fix
    this it seems a new GIOP message needs to be defined to carry the
    implicit get_domain_managers operation. There of course may be other
    ways to fix this. Some of the submitters of the original security spec
    saw domain managers as replicated objects such that a replica of it was
    present in each ORB instance where there was an object belonging to that
    domain manager was instantiated, thus relegating the problem of getting
    the domain manager information to the replication mechanism. Well, the
    hoped for replication facility has not happened yet and there is no
    other way to implement this interoperably. This needs to be fixed.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    get_domain_managers operation in an interoperable fashion. To fix

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Semantics and standard exceptions

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1146
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The spec lists the standard exceptions in section 3.15.1.

    However, for many of these, there are no semantics specified anywhere.
    Instead, for the majority of standard exceptions, the only "semantics"
    are what is in the comments in section 3.15.1.
    We badly need an explanation of which standard exception indicates what
    error condition in the spec, otherwise we"ll never get agreement on which
    exception means what...

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Forward declarations and inheritance

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1145
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The IDL spec explains forward declarations at the end of section 3.5.2.
    However, it does not make the following illegal:

    interface base; // Forward declaration

    interface derived: base

    { // Should be illegal // ... }

    ;

    interface base

    { // ... }

    ;

    The problem here is that a forward-declared interface is used as a base
    interface before the definition for that interface has been seen.
    In the absence of further words in the spec, this is legal, but clearly,
    it should be illegal (otherwise, I can"t use a single-pass compiler).

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

ORB_init

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1088
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Page 4-9 of CORBA 2.2:

    ORBid strings other than the empty string are intended to be used
    to uniquely identify each ORB used within the same address space
    in a multi-ORB application.

    I don"t believe this is possible, mainly because the language mappings
    do not permit multiple ORB run-time libraries to be linked into the same
    address space.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 20 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Indentation on page 4-4

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1094
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: interface Object on page 4-4 shows:

    interface Object

    { ImplementationDef get_implementation(); InterfaceDef get_interface(); boolean is_nil(); Object duplicate(); void release(); boolean is_a(...); boolean non_existent(); boolean is_equivalent(...); unsigned long hash(...); <====== // ... }

    ;

    The first four declarations use no indentation, the fifth declaration
    uses one indentation level, and the final four declarations use a different
    indentation level. This could be tidied up a bit.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Sun, 22 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Editorial issue, chapter 8

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1091
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In the recap IDL at the end of chapter 8, there is a missing comma after
    the tk_except enumerator in the definition of TCKind.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Sat, 21 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

How to deal with object identity

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1086
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: I"m not quite sure where this should go, but there should be an explicit
    statement somewhere in the CORBA descriptions that states how to deal
    with object identity with respect to subscribe/unsubscribe schemes.

    The (language/CORBA/etc independent) pattern
    interface SomeSender

    { void addSomeListener( in SomeListener theListener ); void removeSomeListener( in SomeListener theListener ); ... }

    is very commonly found, and as far as I understand it (I might be wrong,
    but if so, it needs to be documented that this would be incorrect),
    SomeListener actually needs to implement a "is_identical( Object )"
    operation that would be called by the removeSomeListener() operation
    in order to find out which of the registered listeners should be removed.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 20 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

IDl "module" construct - IDL files

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1087
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: It appears that the IDL concept of a module is tightly bound to
    the storage of IDL statements in files. In other words, it does not
    seem to be possible to distribute IDL statements in the same logical
    module across multiple files. Consequently, few people use the
    concept, and name collisions occur sooner or later when trying to
    integrate systems that have not been developed by only one group.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 20 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Typo in type code section (13.3.4)

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1074
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: On page 13-13, CORBA 2.2:

    A "simple" parameter list has a fixed number of fixed length entries,
    or a single parameter which is has its length encoded first.

    This should probably be

    ... single parameter which has is length encoded first.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 19 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Wide character and wide string literals

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1067
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 3.2.5 on page 3-9, 2nd para says:

    Wide character and wide string literals are specified exactly
    like character and string literals. All character and string
    literals, both wide and non-wide, may only be specified
    (portably) using the characters found in the ISO 8859-1 character
    set, that is interface, names, operation names, type names, etc., will
    continue to be limited to the ISO 8859-1 character set.

    • The first part says that wide character literals and wide string literals
      are to be specified exactly like character and string literals.

    This seems to be impossible - if they were exactly the same, there would
    be no point in having them... At any rate, the sentence seems to
    imply that I must restrict myself to ISO Latin-1 characters in
    wide literals.

    • The second part then says that wide literals are restricted to 8859-1,
      but that interface names (etc.) will continue to be limited to 8859-1.

    Now what is that supposed to mean? Interface names have always (and
    incorrectly) been limited to 8859-1. Nothing has changed. Am I to
    imply then that the sentence was meant to suggest that wide literals
    can actually contain wide characters other than 8859-1?

    This paragraph simply doesn"t make sense as it stands.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Type of fixed point quotients

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1071
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: the 2.2 spec on page 3-20 defines the type of a fixed point division as:

    fixed<(d1-s1+s2) + Sinf, Sinf>

    I"m having a problem with this: The type of the result cannot be known
    at compile-time because it depends on the actual values.

    This differs from the add, subtract, and multiplication operators,
    where the result type can be determined statically.

    There is a C++ mapping problem too. The C++ mapping uses a template
    type for fixed point, where the digits and the scale are template parameters
    (i.e. must be compile-time constants).

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 19 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Fixed point constants issue

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1068
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Page 3-20 of CORBA 2.2:

    A fixed-point literal has the apparent number of total and
    fractional digits, except that leading an trailing zeros are
    factored out, including non-significant zeros before the decimal
    point. For example, 0123.450d is considered to be fixed<5,2> and
    3000.00 is fixed<1,-3>.

    Apart from the fact that 3000.00 is not a fixed point constant literal,
    I"m confused about something else...

    If 3000.00d is fixed<1,-3>, then 3000.0000d is also fixed<1,-3>.

    These rules result in

    3000.00d being fixed<1,-3>
    BUT
    3000.01d being fixed<6,2>

    This doesn"t seem to make sense. If I bother to write the trailing zeros,
    surely I have a reason, namely, that I mean to use that scale. In other words,
    I think that

    3000.00d should be fixed<6,2>
    and
    3000.0000d should be fixed<8,4>

    Why are fractional trailing zeros thrown away but fractional trailing
    non-zeros retained?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Fixed point constant typo in 2.2

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1066
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 3.7.2 of CORBA 2.2 contains an error on page 3-20, last para:

    For example, 0123.450d is considered to be fixed<5.2> and
    3000.00 is fixed<1,-3>.

    This is in conflict with section 3.2.5 on page 3-9, last para:

    A fixed-point decimal literal consists of an integer part, a
    decimal point, a fraction part and d or D. [ ... ]
    Either the integer part of the fraction part (but not both)
    may be missing; the decimal point (but not the letter d (or D))
    may by missing.

    So, it seems that the "3000.00" on page 3-20 really should be
    "3000.00d" or "3000.00D".

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Marshalling is_equivalent

  • Legacy Issue Number: 1054
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: CORBA 2.2 GIOP does not define a way to invoke is_equivalent on an object remotely

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    close no change with above explanation

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

#pragma prefix issue

  • Legacy Issue Number: 999
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: How does the scope of #pragma prefix interact with #include? Find details in the corresponding archive

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

CORBA 2.2 - "native" and the interface repository

  • Legacy Issue Number: 992
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Whilst implementing the POA I noticed that there were no extensions to
    the Interface Repository or TypeCodes to handle native types.

    The nett result appears to be that there is no way to express some of
    the POA interfaces in the Interface Repository. Obviously the native
    interfaces themselvse can"t be expressed, but nor can some of the IDL
    specified interfaces.

    e.g. ServantLocator has two operations (preinvoke and postinvoke) both
    of which have a Cookie listed as a parameter. There appears to be no way
    to generate a TypeCode for the Cookie (native) paramter and therefore no
    way to perform an InterfaceDef.create_operation to desribe either of
    preinvoke or postinvoke.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 5 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

union typecode

  • Legacy Issue Number: 811
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: 1. The label value corresponding to a default label should be
    designated explicitly either as an ignored field whose size equals the
    size for the discriminator type, as some value that does not coincide
    with another label value, as reserverd for future use, or as absent
    (Table 12-2 and page 12-16, "encoding the tk_union Default Case" of
    IIOP 2.1).

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Tue, 23 Dec 1997 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

CDR encoding of TypeCode names inconsistent with equal operation

  • Legacy Issue Number: 719
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Should the TypeCode equal operation compare the results of name() to determine TypeCode equality? Same question for member_name()

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Wed, 10 Sep 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate of issue 665

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

OMG IDL prefix pragma

  • Key: CORBA21-90
  • Legacy Issue Number: 566
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: All standard OMG IDL including the CORE and all services have implicit #pragma prefix "omg.org". Make sure this appears intext of ALL IDL that is specified, particular in CORBAServices

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Thu, 22 May 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

WRONG_TRANSACTION

  • Key: CORBA21-87
  • Legacy Issue Number: 557
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: OTS 1.1 spec (page 10-17 and 10-18) is not clear whether the WRONG_TRANSACTION exception is intended to be a system exception or a user exception

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Mon, 28 Apr 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    issue resolved, see revised text

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

Description of constant expression semantics is unclear

  • Key: CORBA21-89
  • Legacy Issue Number: 564
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary:

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Thu, 1 May 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, closed issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

Object terminal missing from IDL grammar

  • Key: CORBA21-88
  • Legacy Issue Number: 563
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Given the current IDL grammar, there is no way to parse any IDL containing the keyword "Object". It never appears in the grammar as a terminal symbol.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Thu, 1 May 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, closed in "97

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

Interface Repository

  • Key: CORBA21-85
  • Legacy Issue Number: 542
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In the Interface Repository spec, StructDef,UnionDef, and ExceptionDef should be derived from Container,since types can be defined within structs,unions,and exceptions according to IDL gram

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Tue, 15 Apr 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

OTS 1.1 specification changes

  • Key: CORBA21-86
  • Legacy Issue Number: 556
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: OTS 1.1 spec doesn"t clearly say which module defines the TRANSACTION_REQUIRED, TRANSACTION_ROLLEDBACK, INVALID_TRANSACTION WRONG_TRANSACTION exceptions.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Mon, 28 Apr 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved close issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

CORBA::Bounds and CORBA::TypeCode::Bounds

  • Key: CORBA21-84
  • Legacy Issue Number: 457
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Does Bounds have data members or not? At what scope should Bounds be defined? Given that Bounds exception is also used by Request interface, I suspect what is meant is CORBA::Bounds

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Wed, 13 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    no change to spec., close issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

3.10.3 Raises Expressions

  • Key: CORBA21-83
  • Legacy Issue Number: 390
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: It would make iDL definition of an interface much more complete if they were permitted. X/Open would like OMG to consider permitting listing of Standard Exceptions in raises clauses.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate of issue # 389...closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

Do simple/anonymous types have repository IDs?

  • Key: CORBA21-82
  • Legacy Issue Number: 137
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Do simple types like "long" have specified repository IDs? ("IDL:CORBA/long:1.0") How about anonymous types, like "sequence <long, 10>"?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Thu, 26 Sep 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    clarified, close issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

Exception as explicit parameter

  • Key: CORBA21-81
  • Legacy Issue Number: 87
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Is it permissible to declare an exception as an explicit parameter?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Sun, 18 Aug 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

section 7.1.1 claims to define the "NVList structure", but doesn't

  • Key: CORBA26-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4722
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    In the Corba 2.5 spec,
    section 7.1.1 claims to define the "NVList structure",
    but doesn't. Section 7.5 defines the "NVList interface".
    Is this a typo in 7.1.1, then?

    This is a bit confusing. Is NVList a struct, or an interface?
    Inquiring minds want to know

  • Reported: CORBA 2.5 — Thu, 15 Nov 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

Implied IDL for interfaces in modules

  • Key: CORBA26-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4719
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    The Messaging Programming Model introduces implied interfaces. These
    interfaces have the same name as the original interface, but with an
    AMI_ prefix.

    What happens if the original interface is in a module? Will AMI_ be
    prepended to the unqualified name, or to the absolute name? E.g.

    module Stock {
    interface StockManager

    { ... }

    ;
    };

    In this case, will the absolute name of the ReplyHandler be
    ::AMI_Stock::StockManagerHandler, or ::Stock::AMI_StockManagerHandler ?

    All examples in the spec (formal/2001-09-26) are outside any module.
    Since it never talks about absolute names, but only of names, it might
    indicate that it should be the latter (AMI_ prepended to the unquali-
    fied name).

    However, the precedent for prefixes, the POA, always prepends the POA_
    prefix to the absolute name, and I would find it confusing if the AMI_
    prefix was used differently.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.5 — Fri, 30 Nov 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

IDL for ORB::resolve_initial_references

  • Key: CORBA26-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4718
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Hewlett-Packard ( Michael Matzek)
  • Summary:

    The IDL for ORB::resolve_initial_references declares that it may throw the standard user exception InvalidName, however the Specification does not specify when, if ever the ORB may do so. Two cases of interest are an unknown name such as a misspelled well-known name and an unimplemented well-known name such as Trading Service.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.5 — Tue, 27 Nov 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    close, no change

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

set_length operation of the DynSequence interface

  • Key: CORBA26-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4713
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ADLINK Technology Ltd ( Jason Courage)
  • Summary:

    The set_length operation of the DynSequence interface is defined as:

    void set_length(in unsigned long len) raises(InvalidValue);

    in the IDL but is defined as:

    void set_length(in unsigned long len) raises(TypeMismatch, InvalidValue);

    in the discussion that follows the IDL in section 9.2.8. The TypeMismatch exception appears inconsistently in the definition of the operation.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.5 — Tue, 20 Nov 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

the IDL include directive should introduce declarations into the namespace

  • Key: CORBA26-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4709
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Hewlett-Packard ( Michael Matzek)
  • Summary:

    The IDL specification for the include directive follows the ANSI C++ specification. This means that the include statement is replaced by the included file's text. The C++ mapping then calls for the generation of stubs and skeletons for the now inline included interfaces. But if the same IDL file, for example CosTransactions.idl, is included in multiple compilation units, the included interfaces become multiply defined. It's like including C++ class definitions rather than class declarations in a C++ program. The problem arises because IDL language mappings specify implementation. Wrapping include directives in different modules has the undesirable effect of requiring multiple implementations of the same operations that differ only in their qualified names. The IDL specification should provide a specification similar to the Java language import statement. That is, the IDL include directive should introduce declarations into the namespace but not implementation via the language. mappings.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.5 — Fri, 16 Nov 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    close, no change

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

DynUnion operations

  • Key: CORBA26-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4708
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ADLINK Technology Ltd ( Jason Courage)
  • Summary:

    In the section describing DynUnion operations, the restatement of the IDL definition of the get_discriminator() operation includes a raises (InvalidValue) clause. This exception is not discussed in the paragraph describing the operation, nor does it appear in the IDL definintion of this operation anywhere else in the chapter.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.5 — Fri, 16 Nov 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

Problem with IDL Context interface

  • Key: CORBA26-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4657
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    a few problems with IDL contexts:

    1) On page 4-32, with have:

    "CORBA::CTX_DELETE_DESCENDENTS deletes the indicated context
    ^^^^^^^^^^^
    object and all of its descendent context objects, as well."
    ^^^^^^^^^^
    The standard system exception BAD_PARAM is raised if there are one
    or more child context objects and the CTX_DELETE_DESCENDENTS
    ^^^^^^^^^^^
    flag was not set."

    That's a bit embarrassing because the correct spelling is "descendants",
    not "descendents".

    2) For the get_values() operation, we have:

    "Scope indicates the context object level at which to initiate the
    search for the specified properties (e.g. "_USER", "_SYSTEM"). If
    the property is not found at the indicated level, the search
    continues up the context object tree until a match is found
    or all context objects in the chain have been exhausted."

    This does not say exactly how this is meant to work. I assume that
    the idea is to start at the current context object, checking whether its
    name matches the start_scope parameter. If it does, start the search here;
    otherwise, go up a level and repeat. Once a context object has been found
    with a matching name, then start looking for the properties and collect
    them together, with lower level settings overriding higher level settings,
    until either all property values have been determined or we run out of
    context objects.

    If this is the intended interpretation, the words in the spec are a long
    way from actually expressing that...

    3) Context objects have names. Those names are used to control the behavior
    of get_values(). However, we have two problems:

    • The top-level context object does not have a defined name, so
      I can't specify its name for get_values().
    • Once I've given a context object a name, I can't get it back out.
      (Yet another case where I am forced to give identity to an object
      only to be denied any opportunity of ever asking what that
      identity is...)

    4) For create_child(), what happens if I:

    • specify a name that doesn't look like an IDL identifier?
    • call create_child() twice with the same name on the same
      parent context?

    5) For delete_values(), what is the behavior if the specified property
    does not exist?

    6) For delete(), what is the minor code of the BAD_PARAM exception
    if I don't set the CTX_DELETE_DSCENDENTS [sic] flag and the context
    has child contexts?

    7) For get_values(), what does it mean to "omit" the scope name? The only
    way to omit it, as far as I can see, is to pass the empty string. If so,
    that should be stated.

    8) For get_values(), what exception is raised if the specified scope name
    is not found?

    9) get_values() and delete() accept a Flags parameter. It is not specified
    how to not set a flag (only what it may be set to). Given that Flags
    is an unsigned long, presumably I have to pass zero to indicate that a
    flag is not set. However, this is not specified.

    10) For get_values(), what is the minor code of the BAD_CONTEXT system
    exception if a property isn't found? Why a BAD_CONTEXT exception? Why
    an exception at all (instead of returning an empty sequence)?

    11) For get_values(), it says:

    The NO_MEMORY exception is raised if dynamic memory allocation fails.

    This sentence is utterly redundant.

    12) For get_values(), we have:

    The values returned may be freed by a call to the list free operation.

    What "list free operation"? There is no such operation on NVList.
    There is CORBA::free, but that is specific to the C mapping.

    13) For get_values(), we have:

    "Scope indicates the context object level at which to initiate the
    search for the specified properties (e.g. "_USER", "_SYSTEM")."

    However, for create_child(), we have:

    "Context object names follow the rules for OMG IDL identifiers."

    "_USER" and "_SYSTEM" are not valid IDL identifiers (at least they were
    not at the time this was written, and you can argue that they still are
    not valid IDL identifiers because the underscore is stripped immediately
    by the IDL compiler).

    14) What happens if I call get_default_context() multiple times? Presumably,
    I will get a reference to the same single context object?

    15) In the first para of page 4-29, it says:

    "... although a specified property may have no value associated
    with it"

    This would appear to be impossible. If the property itself exists,
    it always has a value, namely a string. The closest thing to "no value"
    would appear to be the empty string (or a property doesn't exist at all).

    16) "An operation definition may contain a clause specifying those context
    properties that may be of interest to a particular operation. These
    context properties comprise the minimum set of properties that will
    be propagated to the server's environment..."

    So, what happens if I have

    interface I

    { void op() context("C"); }

    ;

    and no property "C" exists in the context object passed by the client?

    Does this mean that the call will be made, but no property "C" will
    be available to the server? (I don't think so, because that would
    contradict the above words about "minimum set of properties that will
    be propagated")

    Or does it mean that the call will be made, but that the value of "C"
    will be the empty string?

    Or does it mean that the call will be refused because the caller has
    not supplied the required properties? If so, what exception is be
    raised?

    17) "Context property names (which are strings) typically have the
    form of an OMG IDL identifier, or a series of OMG IDL identifiers
    separated by periods."

    This is in conflict with the words about property name syntax elsewhere.

    This is a total mess. One interface with six operations, and about a dozen
    bugs. Impressive!

  • Reported: CORBA 2.5 — Thu, 1 Nov 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Indeed it is hopelessly broken. Fix as suggested below.:

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

Chapter 11, section 11.3.8.19 (WrongPolicy)"

  • Key: CORBA26-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4654
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ADLINK Technology Ltd ( Jason Courage)
  • Summary:

    In chapter 11, section 11.3.8.19, the "raises (WrongPolicy)" clause has been omitted from the specification of the create_reference_with_id operation. (This exception clause is included in the IDL definition in section 11.4.)

  • Reported: CORBA 2.5 — Thu, 1 Nov 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Support for is_a for local interfaces

  • Key: CORBA26-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4623
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Borland Software Corporation ( Vijaykumar Natarajan)
  • Summary:

    Proposal: Section 3.7.6.1: Change the bullet that says

    • The is_a, get_interface, get_domain_managers, get_policy,
      get_client_policy, set_policy_overrides, get_policy_overrides, and
      validate_connection pseudo-operations, and any DII support
      pseudo-operations,
      may result in a NO_IMPLEMENT system exception with minor code 3 when
      invoked on a reference to a local object.

    to:

    • The get_interface, get_domain_managers, get_policy,
      get_client_policy, set_policy_overrides, get_policy_overrides, and
      validate_connection pseudo-operations, and any DII support
      pseudo-operations,
      may result in a NO_IMPLEMENT system exception with minor code 3 when
      invoked on a reference to a local object.
  • Reported: CORBA 2.5 — Tue, 23 Oct 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Reflect this fact as follows

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

Section 11.3.8.16 - ambiguity

  • Key: CORBA26-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4620
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    My issue is the ambiguity surrounding the following statement:

    "If the POA has the SYSTEM_ID policy and it detects that the Object Id value was not generated by the system or for this POA, the activate_object_with_id operation may raise the BAD_PARAM system exception."

    So the spec says the operation may raise the BAD_PARAM exception, but doesn't have to. It would be nice if the spec were to clarify the exact behaviour that should be followed to remove ambiguity, because I'm finding some ORB implementations are throwing a BAD_PARAM exception whereas others are not raising an error condition at all.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.5 — Tue, 16 Oct 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Nil return from resolve_initial_references()

  • Key: CORBA25-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4532
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    The spec doesn't say whether or not resolve_initial_references() is allowed
    to return nil. Clearly, it doesn't make sense for it to do that – we
    should say so in the spec.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Thu, 23 Aug 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

Interpretation of time field in UtcT?

  • Key: CORBA25-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4468
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    in the absence of an RTF for the time service, I'm sending this to the
    core RTF. (You could argue that this is a core issue anyway, since
    the core depends on the time service for messaging.)

    What is the interpretation of the time and tdf fields in a UtcT?

    The spec shows:

    struct UtcT

    { TimeT time; // 8 octets unsigned long inacclo; // 4 octets unsigned short inacchi; // 2 octets TdfT tdf; // 2 octets // total 16 octets. }

    ;

    For TimeT, the spec says:

    TimeT represents a single time value, which is 64 bits in size, and
    holds the number of 100 nanoseconds that have passed since the base
    time. For absolute time the base is 15 October 1582 00:00.

    For UtcT, the spec says:

    UtcT defines the structure of the time value that is used
    universally in this service. The basic value of time is of type
    TimeT that is held in the time field. Whether a UtcT structure
    is holding a relative or absolute time is determined by its history.
    [...]
    The tdf field holds time zone information. Implementation must
    place the time displacement factor for the local time zone in this
    field whenever they create a UTO.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Thu, 9 Aug 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

There is no mapping for fixed types in the COM/CORBA mapping

  • Key: CORBA25-42
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4441
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    There is no mapping for fixed types in the COM/CORBA mapping. Why has this been omitted? Is there a submission underway?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Tue, 31 Jul 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close with answers to the qestions raised, as given above under Resolution

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

COBRA problem using pragma prefix for modules

  • Key: CORBA25-41
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4395
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    Please have a look at the news article below. Basically, the problem is
    that we don't say in the spec what has to happen if I try to give
    conflicting prefixes/IDs/versions to a module (which can happen if a module
    is reopened).

    My feeling is that we should deal with this the same way as for forward
    declarations, that is, force the compiler to emit a diagnostic. I think
    we should also add a note that this can't be enforced by the compiler
    under all circumstances because of separate compilation.
    > Orbacus distribution contains following IDL file.
    >
    > > #pragma prefix "omg.org"
    > >
    > > module CosNaming
    > > {
    > > typedef string Istring;
    > >
    > > struct NameComponent
    > >

    { > > Istring id; > > Istring kind; > > }

    ;
    > > };
    > >
    > > #pragma prefix "ooc.com"
    > >
    > > module CosNaming
    > >

    { > > typedef string Ostring; > > }

    ;
    >
    > And here the error message of IDL to Visual Basic compiler.
    >
    > orbacusnaming.idl:16(8): Attempt to assign a different prefix
    > to a forward-declared identifier
    > orbacusnaming.idl:3(8): Position of the first identifier definition

    The error message is misleading becuase there is no forward-declared
    identifier here. But the compiler has a point – something strange is
    going on there...

    > I look in the CORBA specification and found that modules do have
    > repository ids.

    Absolutely.

    > > Forward-declared constructs (interfaces, value types, structures,
    > > and unions) must have the same prefix in effect wherever
    > > they appear. Attempts to assign conflicting prefixes
    > > to a forward-declared construct result in a compile-time
    > > diagnostic. For example:
    > [...]
    >
    > And what about reopened modules?

    This part of the spec simply doesn't apply because it talks about
    forward-declared things only.

    > Which repository id do they
    > have if someone use different prefix statements? I think
    > they can have only one because the IFR of CORBA allows only
    > one (if the repository version is equal).

    Yes. The spec isn't really clear on this point. Here is your example
    once more, simplified to the bare bones:

    #pragma prefix "X"
    module M

    { typedef string foo; }

    ;

    #pragma prefix "Y"
    module M

    { typedef string var; }

    ;

    The spec simply does not address this problem, so we have a hole. Thinking
    about it, there are two possible interpretations:

    1) Module M gets a prefix "X" initially. Then, when the prefix
    changes to "Y" and the compiler sees M for the second time,
    it could just ignore the prefix for M because M has the prefix
    "X" already.

    2) The compiler could notice that M previously got prefix "X"
    and then complain when it sees M for the second time because
    it would get a conflicting prefix.

    For forward-declared things, the spec applies the philosophy that
    the prefixes must not change. Seeing that a reopened module is somewhat
    similar to a forward declaration (because the same definition can be seen
    more than once), I'd be inclined to amend the spec to say that the prefix
    for a module must not change.

    For cases where the compiler can actually detect this, we can even force
    a diagnostic. However, as for forward-declared things, this is not always
    detectable by the compiler. In particular, if the reopened module is
    reopened in different source files and the two source files are compiled
    separately, there is no way for the compiler to detect that the module
    is getting a different prefix in each source file. If the generated code
    from the two files is linked into the same binary, you should at least
    get a multiple definition error. But if the code for the two files ends
    up in different executables, there is no way to detect the error at all
    and you will get strange things happening at run time.

    As far as the ORBAcus IDL is concerned, I think it needs fixing. The second
    prefix pragma should be inside the module, to avoid the conflict:

    #pragma prefix "omg.org"

    module CosNaming
    {
    typedef string Istring;

    struct NameComponent

    { Istring id; Istring kind; }

    ;
    };

    module CosNaming

    { #pragma prefix "ooc.com" typedef string Ostring; }

    ;

    > Is my IDL2VB compiler again buggy or the Orbacus IDL file
    > or the CORBA specification not clear?

    Well, a little bit of all three I'll raise an issue with the core RTF.

    > I recently solve all founded bugs in IDL2VB and it compiles now
    > all examples of syntax chapter in CORBA spec and find
    > all errors. CORBA is to difficult for humans...

    That's why we use compilers for IDL instead of humans

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Sun, 24 Jun 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify as described below

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

CORBA 2.4.2 (01-02-01.pdf) 4.2.3.4 shutdown (relevant portion)

  • Key: CORBA25-40
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4392
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    CORBA 2.4.2 (01-02-01.pdf) 4.2.3.4 shutdown (relevant portion): "If the wait_for_completion parameter is TRUE, this operation blocks until the shut down is complete. If an application does this in a thread that is currently servicing an invocation, the BAD_INV_ORDER system exception will be raised with the OMG minor code 3, since blocking would result in a deadlock."

    But does this mean that things will be as if the operation has not been called (suggested by the name of the exception raised?), or will they be as if the operation had been called with wait_for_completion FALSE (seems more appropriate)? Or should the implementation decide, and should it just use an appropriate completion code? In this case, is COMPLETION_MAYBE allowed? Letting the implementation decide puts a higher burden on the developer, though, if s/he wants to write portable code, so that developer may decide to just program for the current implementation...

    This question has additional relevance for me because I'm implementing an ORB.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify that BAD_INV_ORDER is raised in this case with COMPLETED_NO

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

Local interface is-a Object?

  • Key: CORBA25-39
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4388
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    For local interfaces, we seem to have internal inconsistencies in the spec.
    For one, it is not clear whether or not a local interface implicitly inherits
    from Object. There is one sentence in the spec that seems to imply that
    there is implicit inheritance from object, on page 3-23 of the 2.5 draft
    (http://doc.omg.org/ptc/1-6-10):

    Any attempt to marshal a local object, such as via an unconstrained
    base interface, as an Object, or as the contents of an any, or to
    pass a local object to ORB::object_to_string, shall result in a
    MARSHAL system exception with OMG minor code 4.

    This implies that I can at least try to pass local object as CORBA::Object,
    which implies that local interfaces do indeed implicitly inherit from Object.

    But then, a bit further down, it says:

    The is_a, get_interface, get_domain_managers, get_policy,
    get_client_policy, set_policy_overrides, get_policy_overrides, and
    validate_connection pseudo-operations, and any DII support
    pseudo-operations, may result in a NO_IMPLEMENT system exception
    with minor code 3 when invoked on a reference to a local object.

    "May result in a NO_IMPLEMENT system exception"? I would suggest "shall"!

    But, more seriously, I can't call is_a() on a local interface. In turn,
    that seems to imply that I can't narrow a local interface either, but
    narrowing is clearly necessary in the presence of inheritance for local
    interfaces.

    It seems that local interfaces must inherit from Object. After all,
    it would be difficult to see, for example, how resolve_initial_references
    can return a reference to the Root POA if it were otherwise... But then,
    if local interfaces do inherit from Object, It doesn't make sense to
    prohibit calling is_a() on them.

    Related to that then is the question of "What is the repository ID of
    a local interface?" Given that they can be narrowed, it would seem that
    they must have repository IDs. (Although, you could argue that narrowing
    is to be achieved via some mechanism other than repository IDs – that
    would also permit is_a() not to be supported and would make narrowing
    an issue that is specific to each language mapping.)

    But the inheritance issue seems serious – if something doesn't inherit
    from Object, I can't return or pass it as an Object, but we are doing
    just that for local objects.

    I think this will require some careful thought. We don't want to find
    ourselves in yet another maze of twisty little passages, all different,
    as we did with pseudo-objects...

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue

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

Wither pseudo-objects?

  • Key: CORBA25-38
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4387
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    the terms "pseudo-object", "pseudo-interface", and "PIDL" appear in many
    places in the spec. However, there does not appear to be a definition
    of what these things actually are anywhere in the spec. Now, for many years
    now, I've been telling people that PIDL objects differ from normal ones
    in the following ways:

    • They don't inherit from Object.
    • They can't be invoked via the DII.
    • They don't have definitions in the IFR.
    • They can't be passed as arguments to remote operations
      (except for TypeCode).
    • They may have special mapping rules.

    I know that, once upon a time, when I first wrote these points into a CORBA
    training course, I didn't just make them up – I found them in the spec.
    However, I'm damned if I can find them now. I looked in the 2.0 spec as
    well as the 2.4.2 spec to no avail. Can someone help me out?

    At any rate, we should add the definition somewhere because, write now,
    we have lots of free-floating terms in the spec.

    On a related note, by searching for "pseudo", I found a few places where
    it is stated that "pseudo-objects do not have object references". That
    seems to be wrong. After all, we pass these things across (local) interfaces
    by reference (instead of by value) and, at the language mapping level,
    pseudo-objects have references that are indistinguishable from any other
    reference. We should correct this.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Missing TypeCode identity

  • Key: CORBA25-37
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4386
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    Steve's and my book contains a bit of code that pretty-prints a TypeCode.
    (See page 704ff, in particular, 709-711.) No big deal – just write
    a recursive function that does a depth-first traversal of a TypeCode tree
    and prints things out, except for one thing: recursive types.

    For recursive types, the code has to be careful not to get trapped in
    infinite recursion. In essence, this means that the pretty-printer has to
    remember which TypeCodes it has already seen and end the recursion if it gets
    to a TypeCode that was printed previously. This is where we run into
    problems because there is no legal way to do this:

    • I cannot rely on the repository ID in the TypeCode to determine
      TypeCode identity because the repository ID for structs and
      unions is optional prior to GIOP 1.2, but recursion happens
      via structs and unions. (A GIOP 1.2 implementation may interoperate
      with a GIOP 1.0 or 1.1 implementation and still end up sending
      TypeCodes without repository IDs.)
    • The code in the book uses is_equivalent() to determine whether
      it has seen a TypeCode previously. However, doing this is
      completely illegal (even though it happens to work with most
      ORBs) because:
    • is_equivalent() does not provide object identity.
    • TypeCode is a pseudo-object, and pseudo-objects do
      not inherit from CORBA object. This means that TypeCode
      doesn't even have an is_equivalent() operation that I
      could call.

    So, as far as I can see, there is no compliant way to reliably and portably
    determine TypeCode identity and, as a result, I can't ever reliably parse
    a TypeCode...

    I can see several solutions for this problem, all with different drawbacks:

    1) Add an identity() operation of some kind to TypeCode.

    An ORB that receives a TypeCode would have to make sure that
    it generates a unique ID for each TypeCode. But that's not
    all that easy to implement – in particular, if we have an
    older TypeCode where all the optional bits are missing, we
    can't reliably establish object identity for a TypeCode.
    (Only structural comparison is possible.)

    2) Add an identity() operation to TypeCode, but have the TypeCode's
    identity generated at the sending end instead of the receiving
    end.

    Major drawbacks: the identity would have to large because it
    needs to be globally unique (e.g. a UUID) and it would change
    the marshaling of TypeCodes.

    3) Add is_equivalent() and hash() operations to TypeCode.

    This might break existing ORB implementations because a lot
    of ORBs seem to inherit from Object for TypeCode and other PIDL
    objects, even though they shouldn't.

    4) Make PIDL objects implicitly inherit from CORBA::Object.

    Note that making the repository ID mandatory is impossible because we
    can't legislate for existing GIOP 1.0 or 1.1 implementations...

    On a related note, we seem to have further problems with the idea that
    PIDL objects don't inherit from CORBA::Object. For example, in the C++ mapping,
    pseudo-objects such as TypeCode, ORB, etc. can be passed as Object_ptr
    (for example, to CORBA::is_nil()). This really means that the C++ mapping
    (and possible mappings for other languages) are completely in conflict
    with the core spec...

    My feeling is that option 4 is really the least-intrusive one. But I'm
    not sure that I fully understand all the ramifications of making that change.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Thu, 28 Jun 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Problem with resolution to 4285 and 4306

  • Key: CORBA25-36
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4385
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    Please take a look at the resolution of issues 4285 and 4306 in
    > ptc/2001-06-08 - the RTF report that is up for recommendation to adopt
    > at this upcoming meeting, and see if they do not fix these problems.
    > 4285 fixes the BAD_OPERATION problem most definitely. 4306 seems to fix
    > the OBJ_ADAPTER problem too, although slightly differently from how you
    > suggest. If these fixes address the problem that you raise in your
    > message, could you please ask Juergen to not create an issue?I didn't CC issues, so I don't think Juergen will create an issue (at least,
    that was the intent). My apologies for the duplication. However, looking
    at 4285 once again, I think there may be a problem:

    In order to return something that means "ServantManager returned wrong
    servant type", I think the ORB core has to insert an active check
    at the point where the servant manager returns. If it doesn't, it will
    either get an unmarshaling error or return a BAD_OPERATION exception with
    some other minor code when it detects that the operation isn't in the
    function pointer table for the servant. In the latter case, the ORB won't
    know anymore why the operation is missing (for example, it could also
    be missing because the client used the DII to invoke a non-existent operation.)

    I am also not sure whether BAD_OPERATION is really the correct exception to
    use. To me, BAD_OPERATION tells the client "you invoked an operation that
    doesn't exist". If we give this exception to the client when it invokes
    an operation that's perfectly good, that's highly misleading because the
    actual problem isn't with the client, but with the servant manager.

    So, I think that using OBJ_ADAPTER, as I suggested, would be better.

    For the resolution to 4306, I think we also have something that is suboptimal.
    That's because minor code 2 say "Servant not found" in table 4-3. But
    I don't see how this is possible. Basically, a servant manager isn't allowed
    to return a null servant. If it can't find the servant, it's supposed to
    throw a system exception. So, a servant manager that returns null is simply
    broken and needs to be recoded. 4306 (by using "Servant not found" as
    the explanation of minor code 2) is misleading, because that condition simply
    can't happen.

    So, without trying to create a procedural mess, could we reconsider the
    resolution to these two issues, maybe for the next vote?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Sat, 23 Jun 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix inconsistency as described below

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

get_interface() underspecified

  • Key: CORBA25-35
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4335
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    the text for get_interface() says:

    An operation on the object reference, get_interface, returns an object
    in the Interface Repository, which provides type information that may
    be useful to a program. See the Interface Repository chapter for a
    definition of operations on the Interface Repository. The
    implementation of this operation may involve contacting the ORB
    that implements the target object.

    This does not say what should happen if I call _get_interface() and

    • the interface repository isn't running,
    • the interface repository is running and can be reached, but
      doesn't contain an entry for the object's interface.

    Looking at the INTF_REPOS exception, we have:

    An ORB raises this exception if it cannot reach the interface
    repository, or some other failure relating to the interface
    repository is detected.

    This would indicate that, if the repository isn't running, the client should
    get INTF_REPOS. However, we have no idea what should happen if the repository
    is in fine shape, but no entry exists for the interface.

    Since an unpopulated interface repository is very much the same thing as
    no interface repository at all, I would like to flag both scenarios as an
    error.

    Proposal: add the following sentence to the end of 4.11.3.22:

    If the interface repository is not available, get_interface() raises
    INTF_REPOS with minor code 1. If the interface repository does not
    contain an entry for the object's (most derived) interface,
    get_interface() raises INTF_REPOS with minor code 2.

    Update the minor code table in 4.11.4 accordingly.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Tue, 5 Jun 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Make the suggested change and the additional change suggested in the archive

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

Typo in UML for POA

  • Key: CORBA25-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4333
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    The UML diagram on page 11-49 uses "the_manager" in two places. This
    should be "the_POAManager".

    In one place, it uses the attribute "the_servant_manager". No such attribute
    exists.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Mon, 4 Jun 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Make the suggested corrections

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

DII create_request

  • Key: CORBA25-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4331
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    CORBA 2.4.1 final, Section 7.2.1 (create_request), page 7-7, last
    paragraph reads:

    "If the name of an implicit operation that is not invocable through DII
    is passed to create_request with a "_" prepended, create_request shall
    raise a BAD_PARAM standard system exception".

    This does not specifies the minor code for the exception.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Fri, 1 Jun 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Ambiguity in non_existent

  • Key: CORBA25-32
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4322
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    Section 4.3.5.1 non_existent last paragraph says:

    Probing for object non-existence may require contacting the ORB that
    implements the
    target object. Such an attempt may fail at either the local or the
    remote end. If non-existent
    cannot make a reliable determination of object existence due to failure,
    it
    raises an exception in the calling application code. This enables the
    application to
    distinguish among the true, false, and indeterminate cases.

    This does not define what exception gets thrown in the indeterminate
    case. I picked TRANSIENT, but COMM_FAILURE or NO_RESPONSE may also be
    valid choices.

    Proposal:

    Change the sentence in last paragraph of section 4.3.5.1:
    If non-existent cannot make a reliable determination of object existence
    due to failure, it
    raises an exception in the calling application code.

    to:
    If non-existent cannot make a reliable determination of object existence
    due to failure, it
    raises a TRANSIENT with XX minor code in the calling application code.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Thu, 24 May 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    close, no change

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

String literal definition incorrect.

  • Key: CORBA25-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4320
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Borland Software Corporation ( Vijaykumar Natarajan)
  • Summary:

    The following from the CORBA 2.4.1 specification.
    3.2.5.2 Character Literals
    A character literal is one or more characters enclosed in single quotes,
    as in ’x.’
    Character literals have type char.
    A character is an 8-bit quantity with a numerical value between 0 and
    255 (decimal).

    3.2.5.4 String Literals
    A string literal is a sequence of characters (as defined in Section
    3.2.5.2, “Character
    Literals,” on page 3-9) surrounded by double quotes, as in “...”.

    The above statements together implies that a string literal may contain
    embedded NULL characters. That is incorrect. The definition of string
    literals must explicitly eliminate NULL.

    Proposal:
    Revised text:

    Section 3.2.5.4 String Literals

    replace this first paragraph
    A string literal is a sequence of characters (as defined in Section
    3.2.5.2, “Character
    Literals,” on page 3-9) surrounded by double quotes, as in “...”.

    with
    A string literal is a sequence of characters (as defined in Section
    3.2.5.2, “Character
    Literals,” on page 3-9), with the exception of the character with
    numeric value 0, surrounded by double quotes, as in “...”.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Mon, 21 May 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Make it so

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

Inconsistent minor code for MARSHAL

  • Key: CORBA25-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4310
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    on page 3-23 of section 3.7.6.1, first bullet point, we find:

    Local types cannot be marshaled and references to local objects
    cannot be converted to strings. Any attempt to marshal a local
    object, such as via an unconstrained base interface, as an Object,
    or as the contents of an any, or to pass a local object to
    ORB::object_to_string, shall result in a MARSHAL system exception
    with OMG minor code 2.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    However, the minor code table, page 4-59, section 4.11.4 shows:

    MARSHAL 1 Unable to locate value factory.
    2 ServerRequest::set_result called before
    ServerRequest::ctx when the operation IDL contains a
    context clause.
    3 NVList passed to ServerRequest::arguments does not
    describe all parameters passed by client.
    4 Attempt to marshal Local object.

    This is inconsisent – the text requires minor code 2, but the table
    requires minor code 4.

    I would suggest to update the first bullet of 3.7.6.1 to require minor code 4,
    in line with what is shown in the table.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Thu, 17 May 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Make it so

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

Minor code

  • Key: CORBA25-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4306
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    "If a ServantManager returns a null Servant (or the equivalent in a language mapping) as the result of an incarnate() or preinvoke() operation, the POA will return the OBJ_ADAPTER system exception with standard minor code 3 as the result of the request."

    Should that be minor code 2 rather than 3? I couldn't find any other reference to OBJ_ADAPTER minor code 2 and the description makes more sense for this condition.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Mon, 14 May 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Yes the minor code in this case should indeed be 2. Make it so

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

Missing POAManager identity

  • Key: CORBA25-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4297
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    the current way of dealing with POAManager objects is less than satisfactory.
    Consider:

    interface POA

    { // ... POA create_POA( in string adapter_name, in POAManager a_POAManager, in CORBA::PolicyList policies ) raises(AdapteraAlreadyExists, InvalidPolicy); readonly attribute POAManager the_POAManager; }

    ;

    The problem here is twofold:

    • There is no way to get at the list of all existing POA managers,
      at least not easily; I have to either keep a list myself,
      or I have to traverse the POA tree and build the list as I go.
    • POA managers have no identity. There is no name or other piece
      of state that would allow me to distinguish one POA manager from
      another.

    The second problem is the more serious one because POA managers are used
    to control the behavior of one or more transport endpoints. Most ORBs
    permit configuration control over transports. For example, it is usually
    possible to configure things such as which protocols/transports should
    be associated with a POA manager, how many protocols/transports should
    be associated, at what address/port the transport controlled by a
    POA manager should listen for requests, what timeouts to apply, etc, etc...

    Currently, ORBs have to resort to proprietary means to attach such
    configuration information. For example, in ORBacus, we use a proprietary
    POA manager factory that permits a name to be attached to a POA manager.
    That name then is used as a hook to attach configuration information
    to POA managers, so we can do things like configure port numbers, etc.

    I'd like to improve the spec such that it becomes possible to control
    identity for POA managers through a standard API. The thoughts are:

    • Add a POAManagerFactory interface that allows
    • creation of POA managers
    • listing of existing POA managers
    • searching for POA managers by name
    • Add an id() accessor to POAManager that returns the name

    For creation of POA managers, a CORBA::PolicyList can be passed into
    the call in addition to the POA manager name. That policy list would permit
    configuration of POA managers through a defined API (even though the
    actual policies that apply would still be proprietary).

    These changes would be completely backward-compatible, so no existing
    code breaks.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Wed, 9 May 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

BAD_OPERATION needs minor code and completion status

  • Key: CORBA25-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4285
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Harold Carr)
  • Summary:

    "This indicates that an object reference denotes an existing object,
    but that the object does not support the operation that was invoked."

    This text does not specify a minor code nor a completion status.

    Section 11.3.4.1 (last paragraph) says:

    "If the ServantManager returns the wrong type of Servant, it is
    indeterminate when that error is detected. It is likely to result in a
    BAD_OPERATION with standard minor code 5 or MARSHAL exception at the
    time of method invocation."

    This implies that 4.11.3.13 should specify a '5' for the minor code.

    A specific minor code for this case is necessary since BAD_OPERATION
    may be raised in other contexts (e.g., IDL->Java mapping for union,
    Any, any extraction, ...).

    I am not sure why it says '5' in 4.11.3.13. Is this minor code
    specified somewhere else that I'm missing?

    Assuming that this is underspecified I would suggest:

    1. assigning a minor code for the case discussed in 4.11.3.13,

    2. making sure that 11.3.4.1 is in sync with that assignment,

    3. specifying a completion status of COMPLETED_NO (since there is no
    way anything could be completed since the call never makes it out of
    the skeleton into the servant).

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Thu, 26 Apr 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Cross-reference refers to wrong section

  • Key: CORBA25-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4276
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The second paragraph of "3.10.1.7 Any Type" uses a cross-reference to explain the concept of the TypeCode in an Any value. This cross-reference refers to section 3.10, which is useless.

    Suggestion: Change this cross-reference to read as follows: '(see Section 10.7, "Type Codes", on page 10-51)'

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Wed, 18 Apr 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix as suggested

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

Issue: Error in section 4.5.3.2 ORBInitRef

  • Key: CORBA25-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4275
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Borland Software Corporation ( Vijaykumar Natarajan)
  • Summary:

    Section 4.5.3.2 says:
    <ObjectURL> can be any of the URL schemes supported by
    CORBA::ORB::string_to_object (Sections 13.6.6 to 13.6.7 CORBA 2.3
    Specification).

    Couple of problems w/ this. Shouldn't the reference be Section 13.6.10
    of this spec. Also, the ObjectURL specifications in chapter 13 include a
    "rir" protocol which obviously makes no sense for ORBInitRef.

    Proposal:

    Replace first sentence of last paragraph of section 4.5.3.2 from:

    <ObjectURL> can be any of the URL schemes supported by
    CORBA::ORB::string_to_object (Sections 13.6.6 to 13.6.7 CORBA 2.3
    Specification).

    to

    <ObjectURL> can be any of the URL schemes supported by
    CORBA::ORB::string_to_object (Section 13.6.10), with the exception of
    the corbaloc URL scheme with the rir protocol (i.e. corbaloc:rir:...).

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Tue, 17 Apr 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix as suggested above

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

Section 10.5.22.2 what happens when conditions not met

  • Key: CORBA25-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4266
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Jishnu Mukerji [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    What happens when someone attempts to set the mode attribute while not
    adhering to the restrictions spelled out?

    We should say what happens if these conditions
    aren't met. Furthermore, a oneway method can't have exceptions.
    I suggest:

    • add a new row to the BAD_PARAM block in Table 10-1 (p.10-10):

    Exception Minor Code Explanation

    BAD_PARAM N Attempt to define a oneway
    operation with non-void result,
    out or inout parameters or
    exceptions

    • Add a similar entry to table 4.3 (p.4-61).
    • Change the last para of 10.5.22.2 to read:

    "The mode attribute can be set to OP_ONEWAY only if the result is
    TC_void, all elements of params have a mode of PARAM_IN, and the
    list of exceptions is empty. If the mode is set to OP_ONEWAY
    when these conditions do not hold, a BAD_PARAM exception is
    raised with minor code N."

    This is perhaps rather large to be a friendly ammendment. I'm
    happy to vote YES to the current resolution, which is still a
    useful change, and raise this for next time. I can't discuss
    further in this round, as I'm on vacation for a week from this
    evening.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Restrictions on native types

  • Key: CORBA25-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4264
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Humboldt-Universitaet ( Martin von Loewis)
  • Summary:

    The new text in 3.10.5 states: "Native type parameters are permitted
    only in operations of local interfaces or valuetypes". However, 11.4
    states that:
    a) Servant is a native type, and
    b) that it is used on the POA::get_servant operation, and
    c) that POA is not a local interface
    (Taking POA as an arbitrary example here; other POA interfaces show
    the same problem). Does that mean that CORBA 2.5 will be inconsistent?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Clarification about include files and IDL compiler behavior

  • Key: CORBA25-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4262
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    I think it would be nice to mention something about code generation in
    section 19.5.22.2. People seem to either expect that the compiler will
    generate code for everything, or that it will generate code only for
    things that are not in included files. The following might help to clear
    this up:

    "Note that whether a particular IDL compiler generates code for included
    files is an implementation-specific issue. To support separate
    compilation, IDL compilers may not generate code for included files, or
    do so only if explicitly instructed."

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Insert the sugested text in section 3.3

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

Definition of NamingContextExt interface in IDL of Appendix A not consisten

  • Key: CORBA25-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4246
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The definition of the NamingContextExt interface in the IDL of Appendix A is not consistent with the definition in section 2.5.4.

    Specifically,

    1. The Appendix A version has an extra operation: resolve_context

    2. In Appendix A, there is an extra exception type in the raises clause of the resolve_str operation: AlreadyBound

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Thu, 29 Mar 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

3.7.4 Forward Declaration (for interfaces) doesn't mention local

  • Key: CORBA25-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4241
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    Section 3.7.4 doesn't mention local as a legal prefix for an interface
    forward declaration.

    Proposal 1:

    Change the sentence:

    "The syntax is: optionally the keyword abstract, followed by the keyword
    interface, followed by an <identifier> that names the interface."

    to:

    "The syntax is: optionally either the keyword abstract or the keyword
    local, followed by the keyword interface, followed by an <identifier>
    that names the interface."

    Proposal 2:

    Just strike the sentence entirely, since it is redundant.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Tue, 27 Mar 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Make the recommended change in Proposal 1

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

What is the semantics of the DataInputStream::read_*_array() operations?

  • Key: CORBA25-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4233
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Yvonne Biggar)
  • Summary:

    The CORBA::DataInputStream abstract valuetype has operations like:

    void read_boolean_array( inout BooleanSeq seq,
    in unsigned long offset,
    in unsigned long length);

    However, the spec says nothing about whether the provided sequence must
    already have sufficient length to satisfy the offset+length or whether
    the operation will extend the sequence to fit.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Fri, 23 Mar 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify that the operations are expected to extend the sequence to fit

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

#include issue

  • Key: CORBA25-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4226
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: AT&T ( Duncan Grisby)
  • Summary:

    A minor issue with section 3.3 of the 2.4 specification:

    "... Text in files included with a #include directive is treated as
    if it appeared in the including file. ..."

    That is not true since, as we find out in chapter 10, included files
    behave specially with regard to assigning repository identifiers.

    e.g. in

    // a.idl
    #pragma prefix "foo"
    interface bar {};

    the repository id of bar is IDL:foo/bar:1.0, but in

    // a.idl
    #pragma prefix "foo"
    #include "b.idl"

    // b.idl
    interface bar {};

    it is just IDL:bar:1.0.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Tue, 20 Mar 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue

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

DynValueBox::set_boxed_value should also raise InvalidValue

  • Key: CORBA25-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4224
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: IONA ( Mark Spruiell)
  • Summary:

    As with other DynAny operations that accept an Any parameter,
    the set_boxed_value operation should be capable of raising
    InvalidValue.

    Proposal:

    • In sections 9.2 and 9.12, add InvalidValue to the raises clause for
      set_boxed_value
    • In section 9.12, replace the text describing set_boxed_value with the
      following:

    "The set_boxed_value operation replaces the boxed value with the specified
    value. If the type of the passed Any is not equivalent to the boxed type,
    the operation raises TypeMismatch. If the passed Any does not contain a
    legal value, the operation raises InvalidValue. If the DynBoxedValue
    represents a null valuetype, it is converted to a non-null value."

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Fri, 16 Mar 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Make it so

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

misleading wording in 10.5.22.2 Write Interface

  • Key: CORBA25-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4217
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The mode attribute can only be set to OP_ONEWAY if the result is TC_void and all
    elements of params have a mode of PARAM_IN.

    which might be taken to mean that the mode attribute must be set to
    OP_ONEWAY if the signature is as described. A better wording might be

    The mode attribute can be set to OP_ONEWAY only if the result is TC_void and all
    elements of params have a mode of PARAM_IN.

    This was brought to my attention by an email question I received today, from
    someone who thought he understood CORBA oneway semantics until he
    read that sentence - then he became confused.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Fri, 2 Mar 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    make it so

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

Inconsistent text for unknown system exception

  • Key: CORBA25-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4189
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: IONA ( Mark Spruiell)
  • Summary:

    In document 01-01-01, there are the following paragraphs which seem
    contrary to one another regarding the minor code to be used when an
    ORB receives an unrecognized system exception.

    4.11.2
    Vendors may define non-standard system exceptions, but these exceptions are
    discouraged because they are non-portable. A non-standard system exception, when
    passed to an ORB that does not recognize it, shall be presented by that ORB as an
    UNKNOWN standard system exception. The minor code and completion status from
    the unrecognized exception shall be preserved in the UNKNOWN exception.

    15.3.5.5 Exception
    Exceptions are encoded as a string followed by exception members, if any. The string
    contains the RepositoryId for the exception, as defined in the Interface Repository
    chapter. Exception members (if any) are encoded in the same manner as a struct.
    If an ORB receives a non-standard system exception that it does not support, or a user
    exception that is not defined as part of the operation's definition, the exception shall be
    mapped to UNKNOWN, with standard minor code set to 2 for a system exception, or
    set to 1 for a user exception.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Sat, 3 Feb 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue

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

ForwardRequest from normal operations

  • Key: CORBA25-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4176
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    interface Foo

    { void op() raises(PortableServer::ForwardRequest); }

    ;

    What happens if a client invokes op() and op() throws ForwardRequest?
    Is this received by the client as a locate forward or does the client
    simply receive the exception?

    The spec doesn't say either way. However, thinking about how all this is
    implemented, I strongly suspect that current implementations will simply
    marshal the exception back to the client instead of sending a locate forward
    reply.

    Personally, I think that's how it should be. If it werent, we'd have to
    insert additional code into the user exception processing path to deal
    with this special exception (which would probably set a bad precedent).

    I'd suggest to amend the spec to state that ForwardRequest has the effect
    of causing a locate forward reply only if thrown from preinvoke() and
    incarnate() and is otherwise just a normal exception.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Fri, 26 Jan 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate change and close issue

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

Introduction of identifiers

  • Key: CORBA25-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4171
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    I cannot seem to come to grips with the introduction of identifiers
    by their use in a nested scope. The example on page 3-54 reads
    (simplified)

    module Inner1

    { typedef string S1; }

    ;

    module Inner2

    { typedef Inner1::S1 S2; // Inner1 introduced typedef string inner1; // Error }

    ;

    The text goes on to explain that the above construct introduces the
    identifier "Inner1", while using the absolute name, "::Inner1::S1"
    in the typedef wouldn't. Therefore, the following code would be
    legal:

    module Inner2

    { typedef ::Inner1::S1 S2; // Inner1 not introduced typedef string inner1; // legal }

    ;

    I fail to see the rationale in this. Also, this is not in sync with
    the Interface Repository, which cannot even detect that the first
    example is illegal, because it never sees relative names.

    My proposed resolution would be to get rid of "introduced names"
    altogether and to declare the above example legal.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Tue, 23 Jan 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change

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

Type redefinition in derived interface

  • Key: CORBA25-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4170
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    The discussion for issue 3525 shows that it is legal to redefine a type
    in a derived interface, as in

    interface B

    { typedef string S; }

    ;
    interface D : B

    { typedef long S; }

    ;

    However, I don't think that this legality is obvious from the text. On
    page 3-52, it says that "inheritance causes all identifiers defined in
    base interfaces to be visible in derived interfaces." Then, on page
    3-56, it is said that "once a type has been defined anywhere within
    the scope of a module, interface or valuetype, it may not be redefined
    except within the scope of a nested module or interface."

    Since B::S is not "defined" but only "visible" in D, and D is not a
    nested interface but a derived interface, there seems to be a gray
    area.

    Proposed resolution:

    Edit the first paragraph of 3.15.3 (Special Scoping Rules for Type
    Names) on p 3-56 to read:

    "Once a type has been defined anywhere within the scope of a module,
    interface or valuetype, it may not be redefined except within the
    scope of a nested module, interface or valuetype, or within the
    scope of a derived interface or valuetype."

    Edit the following example to include, after interface A, but before
    the erroneous redefinition of ArgType,

    interface B : A {
    typedef long ArgType; // OK, redefined in derived interface
    struct S

    { // OK, redefined in derived interface ArgType x; // x is a long A::ArgType y; // y is a string }

    ;
    };

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Tue, 23 Jan 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Make the suggested change clarifying the inheritance case

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

PortableServer::ObjectId

  • Key: CORBA25-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4165
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: IONA ( Matthew Newhook)
  • Summary:

    I propose that ObjectId be changed from:

    typedef sequence<octet> ObjectId;

    to:

    typedef CORBA::OctetSeq ObjectId;

    This shouldn't cause any existing code to break. However, currently
    PortableInterceptor::ObjectId (needed so that the PI module doesn't
    depend on the PortableServer module) isn't directly assignable to
    PortableServer::ObjectId which means additional copying that doesn't
    seem necessary. It also reduces the code-size of the ORB somewhat
    (since a sequence type can be removed from the core).

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue

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

core issue: unchecked narrow

  • Key: CORBA25-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4159
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: UBS ( Hans Kneubuehl)
  • Summary:

    CORBA Core should state that language mappings providing a narrowing mechanism
    are also required to provide an 'unchecked narrowing'-mechanism.

    The original CORBA Messaging specification (orbos/98-05-05) specifies an
    unchecked narrow operation that has not been changed by any Messaging RTF.
    'unchecked narrowing' is not an issue of a single language mapping. Therefore,
    it would be good if this was formulated in the CORBA Core as a general
    requirement for any language mapping.

    The originally adopted CORBA Messaging specification, orbos/98-05-05, had an
    explanatory paragraph for this purpose:

    '3.3.7 Note on Asynchrony and Narrowing of Object References
    Many programming languages map IDL interfaces to programming constructs that
    support inheritance. In those language mappings (such as C++ and Java) that
    provide
    a mechanism for narrowing an Object reference of a base interface to a more
    derived
    interface, the act of narrowing may require the full type hierarchy of the
    target. In this case, the implementation of narrow must either contact an
    interface repository or the target itself to determine whether or not it is
    safe to narrow the client’s object reference. This requirement is not
    acceptable when a client is expecting only
    asynchronous communication with the target. Therefore, for the appropriate
    languages
    this specification adds an unchecked narrow operation to the IDL mappings for
    interface. This unchecked narrow always returns a stub of the requested type
    without
    checking that the target really implements that interface. If a client narrows
    the target to an unsupported interface type, invoking the unsupported
    operations will raise the system exception CORBA::BAD_OPERATION.'

    However, the semantics of the above have obviously not made it into CORBA 2.4.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue

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

Container::lookup() ordering requirements

  • Key: CORBA25-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4152
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    In the Interface Repository, Container::contents() and describe_contents()
    do not seem to have any restrictions on ordering. However, these seem to
    be necessary for interoperability, so that a dynamic bridge that tries to
    find out about a Value by using Container::contents (dk_ValueMember, 0)
    does the right thing.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add language to require preservation of order of elements in IR as shown below

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

Section 2.1.7 of CORBA 2.3 and 2.4

  • Key: CORBA25-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4135
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Dr. Jon M. Siegel)
  • Summary:

    Section 2.1.7 of CORBA 2.3 and 2.4 (and presumably all earlier
    versions) concludes with the sentence

    Object-oriented programming languages, such as C++ and Smalltalk,
    do not require stub interfaces.

    I suspect that this is a relic of some prehistoric age when early
    OMG folk imagined that OO languages would handle some stub stuff
    via language mechanisms. Since this has not turned out to be the
    case, the sentence should be excised.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Wed, 3 Jan 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    incorporate change and close issue

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

Legal IDL?

  • Key: CORBA25-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4132
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: hursley.ibm.com ( Simon Nash)
  • Summary:

    Is the following legal IDL?

    module M
    {
    abstract interface I

    { string s(); }

    ;

    valuetype V supports I

    { private string s; }

    ;
    };

    Our interpretation of the spec is that it is legal but we have been informed
    that some other IDL compilers consider it an error.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Wed, 20 Dec 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

CORBA::ORB::object_to_string() raising INV_OBJREF or BAD_PARAM

  • Key: CORBA25-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4128
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Progress Software ( Eoghan Glynn)
  • Summary:

    There appears to be a contradiction in CORBA 2.4.1 (00-11-07) as to
    whether CORBA::ORB::object_to_string() should raise INV_OBJREF or
    BAD_PARAM when an invalid string is passed.

    Here's where I see a contradiction in the spec:

    CORBA 2.4.1: "4.11.3.6 INV_OBJREF
    This exception indicates that an object reference is internally
    malformed. For example, the repository ID may have incorrect syntax or
    the addressing information may be invalid. This exception is raised by
    ORB::string_to_object if the passed string does not decode correctly."

    This explicitly specifies that INV_OBJREF is thrown if a non-decodable
    stringified IOR is passed to string_to_object().

    On the other hand the table:
    CORBA 2.4.1: "4.11.4 Standard Minor Exception Codes ...
    BAD_PARAM ...
    7 string_to_object conversion failed due to bad scheme name.
    8 string_to_object conversion failed due to bad address.
    9 string_to_object conversion failed due to bad bad schema specific
    part.
    10 string_to_object conversion failed due to non specific reason."

    indicates that BAD_PARAM/10 should be raised for non-specific
    string_to_object failures, contradicting 4.11.3.6 above.

    Is this simply an editing issue in that 4.11.3.6 has not yet been
    updated to take cognizance of 4.11.4? I propose that 4.11.3.6 is updated
    to allow BAD_PARAM to be raised on string_to_object failures where the
    problem lies in the string content.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Tue, 19 Dec 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above, Close issue, already fixed

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

ServantLocator preinvoke/ postinvoke semantics

  • Key: CORBA25-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4117
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Borland Software Corporation ( Andy Cutright)
  • Summary:

    the 2.4 specification states that 'preinvoke and postinvoke operations
    are always called in paris in response to any ORB activity...' the spec
    details in particular the case of what happens when preinvoke is called
    when processing a GIOP Locate message: postinvoke is called subsequent
    to calling preinvoke.

    if the preinvoke raises an exception, what is the expected behavior?
    should postinvoke be called if preinvoke raises a system exception or
    ForwardRequest? are there any situations in which postinvoke would not
    be called following a call to preinvoke?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify the expected behavior if preinvoke raises an exception

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

Minor code 2 description for OBJECT_NOT_EXIST not consistent w/ use

  • Key: CORBA25-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4037
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Borland Software Corporation ( Vijaykumar Natarajan)
  • Summary:

    I was looking at the spec to amend 4033 to not use up a new minor code but
    noticed this text for minor code 2 under OBJECT_NOT_EXIST:

    POAManager::incarnate failed to create POA.

    This is clearly not consistent with its use under the TRANSIENT POA Lifespan
    Policy description (I also found other inconsistent uses, detailed below).

    There are two things that need fixing here. The first one is probably
    straightforward.
    1. The minor code allocated for 4033 must be used in the text for TRANSIENT
    Lifespan Policy in section 11.3.7.2

    2. POAManager::incarnate is not a valid operation at all.
    I found references to OBJECT_NOT_EXIST with minor code 2 in the following
    places:

    A - Section 11.2.6, paragraph 2

    The adapter activator has the opportunity to create the required POA. If it
    does not, the client receives the
    OBJECT_NOT_EXIST exception with standard minor code 2.

    B - Section 11.2.6
    If the POA has the NON_RETAIN policy or has the RETAIN policy but didn't
    find a
    servant in the Active Object Map, the POA takes the following actions:
    Bullet 3

    • If t he USE_OBJECT_MAP_ONLY policy is in effect, the POA raises the
      OBJECT_NOT_EXIST system exception with standard minor code 2.

    C - 11.3.3.2 unknown_adapter
    If the operation returns TRUE, the ORB will
    proceed with processing the request. If the operation returns FALSE, the ORB
    will
    return OBJECT_NOT_EXIST with standard minor code 2 to the client.

    D - 11.3.3.2 unknown_adapter
    If the parent of a nonexistent POA does not have an
    associated adapter activator, the ORB will return the OBJECT_NOT_EXIST
    system
    exception with standard minor code 2.

    E - 11.3.7.6 Request Processing Policy
    USE_ACTIVE_OBJECT_MAP_ONLY - If the Object Id is not found in the
    Active Object Map, an OBJECT_NOT_EXIST system exception with standard
    minor code 2 is returned to the client.

    Cases A, C and D hint that minor code 2 should actually say "Could not
    create or locate POA" or something to that effect. Cases B and E should
    really be using another minor code ("Could not locate object in AOM?").

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Tue, 14 Nov 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    incorporate change and close issue

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

POAManager::deactivate should not mandate ORB::shutdown implementation

  • Key: CORBA25-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4034
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Borland Software Corporation ( Vijaykumar Natarajan)
  • Summary:

    Section 11.3.2.6 has a paragraph that states:

    If the ORB::shutdown operation is called, it makes a call on deactivate
    with a
    TRUE etherealize_objects parameter for each POA manager known in the
    process;
    the wait_for_completion parameter to deactivate will be the same as the
    similarly
    named parameter of ORB::shutdown.

    Shouldn't this be reworded to not require an explicit call to
    deactivate(but only the effect). Also, since ORB::shutdown already does
    the equivalent of destroy on the POAs shouldn't the order of these
    operations be specified. I also think they should be specified in the
    text for ORB shutdown rather than here.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Right, make it so

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

POAManager::deactivate does not specify behavior for "reject"

  • Key: CORBA25-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4033
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Borland Software Corporation ( Vijaykumar Natarajan)
  • Summary:

    This is the first issue I found w/ POAManager::deactivate definition.

    The spec states in section 11.3.2.6, paragraph 1.

    Entering the inactive state causes the associated POAs to reject
    requests that have not
    begun to be executed as well as any new requests.

    However, there is no definition of what "reject" means. What does the
    client see in this case?

    Proposal:

    Add to the paragraph:
    When a request is rejected, an OBJECT_NOT_EXIST system exception with
    standard minor code XX is returned to the client.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.1 — Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    The proposal proved to be too controversial. So suggest close no change

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

Can a valuetype support multiple non-abstract interfaces via inheritance?

  • Key: CORBA25-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4003
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    The CORBA 2.4 specification is not clear about whether a valuetype can
    support multiple non-abstract interfaces via inheritance. Here is an
    example:

    interface I1 {};

    interface I2 {};

    valuetype V1 supports I1 {};

    valuetype V2: V1 supports I2 {};

    Is V2 legal?

    I see three possible resolutions to this issue:

    1. Make V2 illegal. A valuetype may not support a non-abstract
    interface if any of its base valuetypes supports a non-abstract
    interface. This is a pretty simple rule, but I think it is far too
    restrictive, and can get in the way of some cases where supporting
    multiple interfaces could be genuinely useful.

    2. Make V2 legal. Since we have clarified (assuming that the proposed
    resolution of 3589 passes, which it appears it will) that valuetypes
    that support an interface are not synonymous with an object reference
    that uses that valuetype as a servant, I don't see any actual core
    issues that break the object model. Also, my inspection of the language
    mappings does not reveal any problems on that front either.

    3. Make V2 illegal, but make it legal if I2 inherited from I1. The
    rule would be that a valuetype can support a non-abstract interface only
    if that interface is derived (directly or indirectly) from all other
    non-abstract interfaces that are supported by base valuetypes. This
    allows the use of the ladder inheritance pattern, which I think is very
    useful in this case:

    interface I1 {};

    valuetype V1 supports I1 {};

    interface I2 {};

    valuetype V2 supports I2 {};

    interface I3 : I1, I2 {};

    valuetype V3 : V1, V2 supports I3 {};

    Of these three posible resolutions, I prefer #2, since I don't see any
    practical implementation problems, so the restriction in #3 is really
    not necessary.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4 — Fri, 27 Oct 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

Request reuse

  • Key: CORBA21-35
  • Legacy Issue Number: 88
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Can a Request pseudo object be invoked multiple times?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 20 Aug 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

Whether unions carry exact discriminant information

  • Key: CORBA21-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 66
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: It is uncertain whether or not the explicit value used to discriminate between various arms of a union is information which is required to be supported.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Mon, 5 Aug 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

Recusive Type Definitions

  • Key: CORBA21-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: What does "semantically constrained" mean in section 3.8.2 under the discussion of recursive type specifications.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Thu, 16 May 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue, resolved

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

Usage of standard exceptions

  • Key: CORBA21-37
  • Legacy Issue Number: 97
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Is there a difference between standard/system exception? Can an implementation raise both? Is raising a standard exception the recommended way to handle errors while setting an attribute?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Fri, 6 Sep 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

Ambiguity in DII and DSI

  • Key: CORBA21-36
  • Legacy Issue Number: 90
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: For the DII, what value if any can be placed into the Any in the NamedValue corresponding to an OUT parameter? Must it be NULL, or is it legal to include a storage pointer? Also for DSI.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Thu, 22 Aug 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

CORBA2.0, 1.2.2 Paragraph 2 - comment

  • Key: CORBA21-42
  • Legacy Issue Number: 384
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Para points to C Language Binding chapter and the DII for info on dynamic invocation of objects. It implies that DII is only available in C. Text should pobably be more clear

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

Scope of standard exceptions

  • Key: CORBA21-41
  • Legacy Issue Number: 132
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Page 3-35 doesn"t really say that the list of standard exceptions belong to the CORBA module, although 3.12 seems to clarify.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Mon, 23 Sep 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

_is_a with CORBA::Object as input parameter

  • Key: CORBA21-39
  • Legacy Issue Number: 127
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: What should _is_a() return when invoking it with an input parameter designating CORBA::Object?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Mon, 23 Sep 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed with revised text

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

Unqualified names in scopes

  • Key: CORBA21-38
  • Legacy Issue Number: 117
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: CORBA says "Once an unqualified name is used in a scope, it cannot be redefined", but my IDL compiler allows it. Is it legal?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Mon, 23 Sep 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    no change to spec., close issue

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

3.10.3 Raises Expressions

  • Key: CORBA21-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 389
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Para last, comment: We understand why standard exceptions may not be listed on a raises expression, but it would make IDL definition of interface more complete if permitted.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

3.9 Exception Declaration

  • Key: CORBA21-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 388
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Para 2, editorial: Change "...(as specified by the <member> in its declaration." to "...(as specified by the <member> in its declaration)."

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

2.5 Structure of an Object Adapter

  • Key: CORBA21-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 387
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Paragraph 2, editorial: Change " registration of implementations" to "Registration of implementations"

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

2.1 Structure of an Object Request Broker

  • Key: CORBA21-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 386
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Paragraph 1, editorial: Change "....up the "request." to "....up the request."

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

Unions with enum as discriminator type

  • Key: CORBA21-40
  • Legacy Issue Number: 130
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: How is it possible in IDL to specify a union with an enum discriminator type?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Mon, 23 Sep 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    no change necessary, close issue

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

1.2.2 Requests Paragraph last - editorial

  • Key: CORBA21-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 385
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Change "Descriptions of the values and exceptions...." to "For descriptions of the values and exceptions..."

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

IDL grammar

  • Key: CORBA21-68
  • Legacy Issue Number: 458
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: There is an inconsistency between the IDL grammar as defined in chapter 3 of CORBA2.0 spec and an IDL example from same chapter(Example p. 3-16..rule 71 and rule 36 specify different

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Thu, 5 Dec 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

8.1 Role of the Basic Object Adapter Para 1 - comment

  • Key: CORBA21-67
  • Legacy Issue Number: 455
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Last sentence: Seems like an odd thing to say. All X/Open specs only guarantee that they are correct if system is configured correctly. Not a big deal

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

7.4 ORB Initialization Last Paragraph - objection

  • Key: CORBA21-66
  • Legacy Issue Number: 454
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Unacceptable to say that "calling the ORB_init function multiple times for the same ORB may be required where an ORB is implemented as a shared library."

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    defer to portability

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

7.4 ORB Initialization Last Paragraph - objection

  • Key: CORBA21-65
  • Legacy Issue Number: 453
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: X/Open would like to see either the provision for a system default ORB or an interface that application could use to get list of available ORBs from which to choose.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No change to the specification. The existing spec supports a default ORB

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

7.2.5 Probing for Object Non-Existence Paragraph 2 - comment

  • Key: CORBA21-64
  • Legacy Issue Number: 452
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Para describes implementation strategies that ORB implementors might use to ensure ORBS remain synchronized about presence of objects.Info really appropriate for this spec?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    no change required, close issue

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

7.2.4 Equivalence Checking Operation Paragraph 3 - comment

  • Key: CORBA21-63
  • Legacy Issue Number: 451
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Concept of "type safe narrow" isn"t really described. What"s it"s importance, announcement mechanism, and whether it can be portably relied on by programmers. Where"s more info in spec??

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

7.2.1 Determining the Object Implementation and Interface

  • Key: CORBA21-62
  • Legacy Issue Number: 450
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Para 1-comment: These interfaces are very important parts of ORB interface. Their semantics are very unclear. What exceptions are they permitted to raise? Expand on this definition.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

7.1 Converting Object References to Strings Para 3 - comment

  • Key: CORBA21-61
  • Legacy Issue Number: 449
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: it"s not clear from this whether the string generated by object_to_string is portable accross ORBs or among clients. Please add text clarifying portability of generated string.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

6.5.6 Repository Paragraph 4 - editorial

  • Key: CORBA21-60
  • Legacy Issue Number: 436
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The mention of the kind attribute should be bold-face

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

6.5.4 Container Last Paragraph - editorial

  • Key: CORBA21-59
  • Legacy Issue Number: 433
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The trailing period is missing.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    changed, close issue

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

6.4.3 Interface Objects Paragraph 2 - editorial

  • Key: CORBA21-58
  • Legacy Issue Number: 419
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Change "...not by modify..." to "...not by modifying..."

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

6.4.3 Interface Objects Paragrapg 1 - editorial

  • Key: CORBA21-57
  • Legacy Issue Number: 418
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Numbered bullet list following this para is formatted poorly. Text items should be alligned and offset from the numbers in a consistent way

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

6.3.1 Managing Interface Repositories

  • Key: CORBA21-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 417
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Paragraph 1 - editorial: Change the reference to "get_interface" to the appropriate type-face

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

5.3.2 Registering Dynamic Implementation Routines Para 1- comment

  • Key: CORBA21-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 411
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Paragraph starts off by explaining that previous versions of CORBA weren"t complete. Not necessary to belabor this point. It"s not clear whether or not this lack has been repaired.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is fixed by the new DSI text from the Portability FP

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

5.2 Explicit Request State: ServerRequest Pseudo Object

  • Key: CORBA21-54
  • Legacy Issue Number: 410
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Para 4: editorial Change "..OMG IDL for operation.." to "..OMG IDL for the operation...:.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

4.6.5 delete_values Paragraph 1 - editorial

  • Key: CORBA21-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 407
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Change "value(s) values" to "value(s)

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

4.3.3 get_response

  • Key: CORBA21-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 401
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Para 0 - editorial: Add a line containing ");" to the PIDL for get_response, to match the PIDL given in section 4.2.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

4.1 Overview, Paragraph 3, editorial

  • Key: CORBA21-49
  • Legacy Issue Number: 392
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Dynamic Invocation Interface is a proper name, and should be capitalized and italicized

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

3.15.2 Object Non-Existence, Para 1, editorial

  • Key: CORBA21-48
  • Legacy Issue Number: 391
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Change "This standard system exception" to "The OBJECT_NOT_EXIST exception", to make explicit which exception is being discussed

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

4.2.3 invoke

  • Key: CORBA21-51
  • Legacy Issue Number: 398
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Paragraph 1 - editorial : The leading "c" in create_request is not boldface

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

4.1.2 Memory usage, Para 1, editorial

  • Key: CORBA21-50
  • Legacy Issue Number: 394
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: There is an extra space between the table reference "Table 21" and the period

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

Efficient construction of Any types w/o DynamicAny

  • Key: CORBA24-63
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3185
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The current C++ mapping does not offer efficient insertion or
    extraction of data from CORBA::Any if static type information
    (IDL-generated insertion and extraction operators) are not
    available.

    I'm thinking of a dynamic DII gateway that needs to shovel large
    amounts of data, such as a sequence<octet>. Presently, the gateway
    must employ the DynAny type, and loop over the number of elements,
    calling insert_octet() or get_octet() repeatedly. This is inefficient,
    especially for large sequences/arrays of basic types.

    I think that a more efficient mechanism might be useful for some
    applications.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 7 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue

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

special-casing TypeCode is unnecessary

  • Key: CORBA24-62
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3181
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Progress Software ( Steve Vinoski)
  • Summary:

    The resolution to issue 3048 special-cases TypeCode in a manner that
    essentially makes it a keyword. First of all, given that TypeCode lives in
    the CORBA module, and thus is properly named CORBA::TypeCode, this is
    highly irregular because it means we have a scoped keyword. Second, this
    change also significantly breaks working products – it adopts
    implementation details of certain compilers and rules out already-working
    implementation approaches of other existing compilers. The OMG is not
    supposed to dictate implementation. Finally, the rationale for the changes
    made for 3048 centered around unquantifiable performance issues that IMO
    affect only a very small minority of applications.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 6 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue.

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

POA status during destruction is unclear

  • Key: CORBA24-78
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3436
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Cisco Systems ( Paul Kyzivat)
  • Summary:

    The description of POA destroy in section 11.3.8.4 is unclear.
    There are several ways to implement this, which may result in problems
    porting application code between orbs.

    Some of the ambiguities are:

    1) It may or may not be legal for an application to create new child POAs
    while the existing children are being destroyed. This could happen
    explicitly or via AdapterActivators. Such behavior could prevent destruction
    from ever completing.

    2) If the POA's POAManager is in the holding state at the time of
    destruction (or if its state is changed to holding during the destruction
    process), it isn't clear what happens to the held requests.

    3) If the POA's POAManager is active, what happens to requests that arrive
    after the call to destroy but before the destruction becomes apparent? If
    they are to be serviced, a sufficiently rapid arrival rate may prevent the
    destruction from ever completing.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify POA behavior during destruction as described below

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

Problem with valuetype parameter copying

  • Key: CORBA24-77
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3364
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    Corba 2.3.1 section 5.2.4.3 states that valuetypes passed as parameters
    are copied when passed into the receiving context. Is this also true
    for valuetypes that are embedded in a contructed IDL type passed as a
    parameter?

    Example:

    // IDL

    valuetype V { };

    struct S

    { V a_v; }

    ;

    interface I

    { S op(in S s1, inout S s2, out S s3); }

    ;

    When I::op is called are the valuetypes embedded in s1, s2, s3 and the
    return value supposed to be copied when making a collocated call?

    Example 2:

    // IDL

    interface J

    { any op(in any a1, inout any a2, out any a3); }

    ;

    If one of the any parameters to J::op contains a valuetype, must it be
    copied before/after a collocated call? What if the any contains a
    struct S instead?

    It seems to me we need to revisit the valuetype copying issue. We have
    three choices:

    1. Valuetypes are not copied for collocated calls.
    2. Only valuetypes as explicit parameters are copied for collocated
    calls.
    3. All valuetypes are copied no matter how deeply they are nested in
    parameters.

    Currently the specification is ambiguous as to whether the semantics are
    supposed to be case 2 or 3. Case 3 is the only one that provides
    guaranteed location transparency, but the cost to implement case 3 for
    collocated calls far too high. It would effectively require the same
    overhead as marshalling/unmarshalling for any operation that has a
    valuetype embedded in a complex IDL type or any.

    So, given that transparency for collocated calls cannot be maintained
    without high overhead, should we completely remove the copying
    requirement because transparency cannot be maintained, or should we just
    document that case 2 is the accepted semantic?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 25 Feb 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, see below

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

Inheritence table 3-10 wrong?

  • Key: CORBA24-66
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3203
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    There appears to be a minor glitch in table 3-10. It states that
    stateful valuetypes can only support one non-abstract interface, but it
    is not clear what is correct for abstract valuetypes or abstract
    interfaces, since it uses the words "supports", not "supports single" or
    "multiple" which are used elsewhere. It certainly does not appear
    reasonable for abstract valuetypes to be able to inherit from more than
    one non-abstract interface when stateful valuetypes cannot.

    This brings up a question: Can abstract valuetypes support non-abstract
    interfaces? It's not clear to me what the answer to this ought to be.

    Anyway, it appears to me that part of the table should look like this
    instead:

    May inherit from: | Interface | Abstract Interface
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abstract | *no or supports single| multiple
    Value |
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Stateful | supports single | multiple
    Value | |
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    • depending on the answer to the question above
  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Mon, 10 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    The table needs to be changed to clarify as shown below

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

poll_response()

  • Key: CORBA24-65
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3196
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    there really is a different issue here. On page 7-5:

    boolean poll_response();

    On page 7-9:

    boolean poll_response ( in Request req);

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 11 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Already fixed editorially in draft.

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

Ordering issues in the DII

  • Key: CORBA24-64
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3194
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    The following are currently undefined in the spec:

    • What happens if poll_response or get_response is called
      before send_deferred?
    • What happens if get_response is called after invoke?
    • What if get_response is called more than once?

    [ Interestingly, the resolution to issue 2341 resolved something,
    but it wasn't issue 2341 That's because the resolution
    doesn't say that calling get_response twise is illegal. ]

    • Is it legal to call poll_response more than once?

    I think that, for the first three, we should raise BAD_INV_ORDER. We
    also need minor codes for those.

    For case four, I'd suggest that calling poll_response multiple times is OK,
    but that calling it once get_response was called should raise BAD_INV_ORDER.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 11 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix as described above.

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

Does a value in a valuebox make sense?

  • Key: CORBA24-68
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3220
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    Although legal in the CORBA 2.3 IDL grammar, creating a valuebox of
    another valuebox or valuetype is of dubious use. I can't see why having
    an extra level of indirection here would ever be useful. None of the
    language mappings that have defined mappings for valuebox (C++, Java,
    Ada) address this issue either.

    Does it make sense to disallow valueboxing valueboxes or valuetypes?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Sat, 15 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue.

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

Semantics for DynAny::equal underspecified

  • Key: CORBA24-67
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3205
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    CORBA 2.3.1, 9.2.3.5 says: "Two DynAny values are equal if their
    TypeCodes are equivalent and, recursively, all component DynAnys have
    equal values."

    We already added text in the Y2K RTF to clarify equal for object
    references & typecodes, but this leaves an exercise for the reader to
    figure out what equal means for some IDL types, particularly fixed,
    sequences & valuetypes. I believe that an experienced person thinking
    about it can come up with the correct rules, but why leave it up to
    mistaken interpretation.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Mon, 10 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolve as suggested

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

Minor glitch about forward declared things

  • Key: CORBA24-72
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3270
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    When value types added forward declarations, and when we added forward
    declarations for structs and unions, we forgot to update the version pragma
    text. Currently, it says (page 10-45):

    Attempts to assign a prefix to a forward-declared interface
    and a different prefix to that interface later result in
    a compile-time diagnostic:

    Proposal:

    Change that sentence to read:

    Forward-declared constructs (interfaces, value types, structures,
    and unions) must have the same prefix in effect wherever they appear.
    Attempts to assign conflicting prefixes to a forward-declared
    construct result in a compile-time diagnostic. For example:

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 4 Feb 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add the following clarification:

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

#pragma rules are too restrictive

  • Key: CORBA24-71
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3269
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    I think the current rules for #pragma are too tight and we need to relax
    them. In particular, for the ID pragma (page 10-43):

    If an attempt is made to assign a repository ID to the same
    IDL construct a second time, a compile-time diagnostic shall
    be emitted, regardless of whether the second ID is in conflict or not:

    interface A {};
    #pragma ID A "IDL:A:1.1"
    #pragma ID A "IDL:X:1.1" // Compile-time error

    interface B {};
    #pragma ID B "IDL:BB:1.1"
    #pragma ID B "IDL:BB:1.1" // Compile-time error

    This causes problems with separate compilation. For example:

    // x.idl
    namespace Foo

    { // ... };
    #pragma ID Foo "IDL:blah:1.0"

    // y.idl
    namespace Foo { // ... }

    ;
    #pragma ID Foo "IDL:blah:1.0"

    // z.idl
    #include "x.idl"
    #include "y.idl"

    The same problem arises with the version pragma, because I may want to
    change the version in two different source files.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 4 Feb 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify as suggested

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

Editorial mistake in IDL chapter

  • Key: CORBA24-70
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3268
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    On page 10-46 of the latest draft, at the end of section 10.6.5.2,
    there are three paragraphs that talk about a SoftCo printer. It looks
    like these are somewhere else in previous version and accidentally
    got moved or left behind during the edition for the chapter.
    (If that's a wrong guess, I'd like to know what they are doing there
    because they most certainly don't contribute to the content of this
    section

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 2 Feb 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Move the text in question to a more appropriate place as suggested below

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

Can native be used in constructed IDL types?

  • Key: CORBA24-69
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3258
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    CORBA 2.3.1, section 3.10.5 says:

    "A native type may be used to define operation parameters and results.
    However, there is no requirement that values of the type be permitted in
    remote invocations, either directly or as a component of a constructed
    type."

    This is ambiguous as to whether a native type may be used in a
    constructed IDL type that is intended to be used only locally:

    // IDL

    native MyNative;

    struct MyStruct

    { MyNative a_native; }

    ;

    So, should the first sentence in 3.10.5 be read to mean that native may
    ONLY be used in parameters & results? If so, we ought to put the word
    "only" in there.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 26 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue.

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

valuetype factory inheritence?

  • Key: CORBA24-74
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3305
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    The CORBA 2.3.1 Core specification is silent on the issue of whether
    factories defined for a valuetype are "inherited" into derived
    valuetypes. I assume that there is no such inheritence.

    Proposal:

    Add to the end of the first paragraph in 3.8.1.5:

    "Initializers defined in a valuetype are not inherited by derived
    valuetypes."

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 9 Feb 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add clarifying text as shown below:

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

Definition of COMPLETED_NO needs to be clarified

  • Key: CORBA24-73
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3302
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: BROKAT Informationssysteme ( Blake Biesecker)
  • Summary:

    In order to resolve the OTS RTF issue 1819, we need
    to have clearer wording regarding what COMPLETED_NO.

    Since we now have the POA, the following phrase from
    section 3.17 is not clear enough:

    COMPLETED_NO The object implementation was never initiated prior to the exception being raised

    In order to get proper rollback logic for transactions
    that get system exceptions and, I'd imagine, to get
    proper fault tolerant behavior, it needs to be made
    clear that COMPLETED_NO means that absolutely no execution
    on the server took place prior to the exception being
    raised. Without such a clarification, it is not possible
    to guarantee data integrity for fault tolerance and it
    forces the OTS to insist on a strict rollback policy when
    a system exception is raised.

    In particular, with the advent of the POA, "object implementation"
    is not as clear as it once was. Does this include servant
    locators, for example.

    As a place to start, I'd like to suggest this instead:

    COMPLETED_NO No execution was initiated in the server prior to the exception being raised

    (The archive for issue 1819 contains a lot more
    discussion on this topic as it relates to the
    OTS.)

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 8 Feb 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change

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

response_flags in interop draft

  • Key: CORBA24-76
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3338
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: UBS ( Hans Kneubuehl)
  • Summary:

    n the interop draft (ptc/00-02-04) the response_flags are defined now in terms
    of SyncScope. However, SyncScope does only apply to oneway, DII with
    INV_NO_RESPONSE, and sendc-stubs with no reply handler. The Messaging
    submission explicitly defines that it is ignored in the other cases.

    from CORBA Messaging:

    interface SyncScopePolicy

    This interface is a local object derived from CORBA::Policy. It is applied to
    oneway
    operations to indicate the synchronization scope with respect to the target of
    that
    operation request. It is ignored when any non-oneway operation is invoked. This
    policy is also applied when the DII is used with a flag of INV_NO_RESPONSE since
    the implementation of the DII is not required to consult an interface
    definition to
    determine if an operation is declared oneway. The default value of this Policy
    is not
    defined. Applications must explicitly set an ORB-level SyncScopePolicy to ensure
    portability across ORB implementations. When instances of SyncScopePolicy are
    created, a value of type Messaging::SyncScope is passed to
    CORBA::ORB::create_policy. This policy is only applicable as a client-side
    override. The client’s SyncScopePolicy is propagated within a request in the
    RequestHeader’s response_flags as described in GIOP Request Header.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Mon, 21 Feb 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved in interop RTF

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

symbolic constants for minor exception codes

  • Key: CORBA24-75
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3319
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    in section 3.17.2, we show all the minor codes for exceptions. Unfortuantely,
    these are all magic numbers rather than symbolic constants. In turn,
    these means that I can't write portable code unless I use the magic numbers
    directly.

    It would be nice to have constant definitions for these instead, so I
    can refer to minor numbers in the code without having to resort to
    hard-wired magic numbers.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 16 Feb 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change.

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

ORB::shutdown underspecified

  • Key: CORBA24-93
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3618
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    If I call ORB::shutdown(), it implicitly calls POA::destroy() on the
    Root POA.

    I assume that the value of the wait_for_completion parameter to
    ORB::shutdown() should be passed through to POA::destroy()? The spec isn't
    entirely clear on this point.

    Further, what is the effect of calling ORB::shutdown() on the value
    of the etherealize_objects parameter for POA::destroy()? Since ORB::shutdown()
    doesn't have an etherealize_objects parameter itself, the value passed
    through to POA::destroy must be implicit, but the spec doesn't say what
    it is.

    Similarly, ORB::destroy() implicitly calls ORB::shutdown(). From the
    second-last para on page 4-35, it would appear that this implicit call
    is made as ORB::shutdown(true) rather than ORB::shutdown(false). It
    might be nice to make this explicit so I don't have to read between the
    lines to figure it out.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 17 May 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue.

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

Policy Management in the ORB core

  • Key: CORBA24-92
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3614
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: foxfield-sw.demon.co.uk ( Nick Sharman)
  • Summary:

    (All document refs to ptc/00-03-02, but I think the relvant sections are the
    same in ptc/00-04-05)

    (a) Sec. 4.3.7.1 (Object::get_policy) says that the "effective Policy is the
    intersection of the values allowed by the effective override and the
    IOR-specified Policy." What does this mean? For example, the example
    MyPolicy given in 4.8.5 appears to define some range or interval, so the
    intersection of two MyPolicy objects has some meaning - but I doubt if it's
    reasonable to expect the ORB to deduce that.

    I suggest that the effective policy is:

    • any override of that type if there is one, else
    • any IOR-specified policy of that type if there is one, else
    • the system default of that type if there is one, else
    • the null Policy reference (or a system exception? which?).

    This is feasible and consistent with normal meaning of "override" as
    "replace", not "modify".

    (b) Sec. 4.3.7.2 (Object::get_client_policy) suggests that the ORB searches
    the object's overrides, then PolicyCurrent's overrides, then PolicyManager's
    overrides. If it can't find any in those, then it can return the system
    default. I suggest the system default be left out of this search - it's not
    an override, it's a final default - and that we define what happens if no
    policy of the right type can be found, either null or a system exception.

    (c) Sec. 4.3.8.1 (Object::set_policy_overrides) and sec. 4.9.3.1
    (PolicyManager::set_policy_overrides) both allow the existing set of
    overrides either to be replaced or to be extended.

    If the set is to be extended, and the new overrides contain a Policy of a
    type for which there is already an override, should the supplied Policy
    (1) replace the existing Policy silently, or
    (2) be ignored silently, or
    (3) cause a system exception (and which)?

    Whatever the value of 'set_add', if the supplied Policy list contains two
    Policies of the same type, which one prevails, if any? I suggest
    "implementation defined", but we could mandate a system exception.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Mon, 15 May 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue

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

Inheritance description incorrect

  • Key: CORBA24-84
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3525
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    On page 3-46, CORBA 2.3, we have some old words that got forgotten during
    the scope resolution rule cleanup we did some time ago:

    Inheritance produces shadow copies of the inherited identifiers;
    that is, it introduces names into the derived interface, but these
    names are considered to be semantically the same as the original
    definition. Two shadow copies of the same original (as results
    from the diamond shape in Figure 3-1 on page 3-21) introduce a
    single name into the derived interface and don't conflict with
    each other.

    That's wrong because it confuses visibility of an identifier with introduction
    of an identifier (which are different things). I would suggest to reword
    as follows:

    Inheritance produces shadow copies of the inherited identifiers;
    that is, inherited identifiers are visible in derived interfaces.
    Such identifiers are considered to be semantically the same as
    the original definition. Two shadow copies of the same original (as
    results from the diamond shape in Figure 3-1 on page 3-21) do
    not conflict with each other.

    This simply gets rid of the word "introduces", which has the wrong meaning.

    Note that these words have been wrong all along, even before we changed
    the name lookup rules. That's because, if inherited identifiers were
    indeed introduced into the derived interface, the following would be illegal
    (but has in fact never been illegal):

    interface B

    { typedef string S; }

    ;

    interface D : B

    { typedef long S; }

    ;

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 31 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix as suggested below

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

ORB mediation for servant managers, references for servant managers?

  • Key: CORBA24-83
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3460
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    Two questions:

    1) Are calls to operations on servant managers mediated by the ORB?

    2) Is it legal to export the object reference for a servant manager
    to another process?

    For question 1, the answer would appear to be no. Here is why:

    Page 11-17:

    Inactive state

    When a POA manager is in the inactive state, the associated POAs
    will reject new requests. [...] If the client is co-resident in
    the same process, the ORB could raise the OBJ_ADAPTER system
    exception, with standard minor code 1, to indicate that the
    object implementation is unavailable. [...]

    If the transition into the inactive state is a result of calling
    deactivate with an etherealize_objects parameter of

    • TRUE - the associated POAs will call etherealize for
      each active object associated with the POA once all
      currently executing requests have completed processing
      (if the POAs have the RETAIN and USE_SERVANT_MANAGER
      policies). If a servant manager has been registered for
      the POA, the POA will get rid of the object. If there
      are any queued requests that have not yet started
      executing, they will be treated as if they were new
      requests and rejected.

    If calls to servant managers were to be ORB-mediated, the calls to
    etherealize() cannot possibly be dispatched because the corresponding
    servant manager is already in the inactive state. The only logical conclusion
    I can see is that calls to servant managers are not mediated by the ORB.

    I think the spec should be updated to state this.

    For question 2, the answer would also appear to be no:

    Exporting a reference to a servant manager outside my own address space
    makes no sense whatsoever. Here a servant manager offers either
    incarnate() and etherealize(), or it offers preinvoke() and postinvoke().
    These are the only operations that are possible (apart from operations
    on Object). If it were possible to export a reference to a servant
    manager to another address space, there is nothing the receiver of
    the reference could do with it (other than call operations on Object).
    That's because incarnate(), etherialize(), and preinvoke use a native
    type (servant). postinvoke() doesn't use a native type, but
    accepts a parameter of type POA, so postinvoke cannot be invoked
    remotely either (because POA is locality constrained and its
    reference cannot be marshaled).

    So, it appears clear that export of servant manager references should be
    illegal and flagged the same way as an attempt to export a POA manager
    reference.

    The spec currently says this about servant managers:

    A ServantManager object must be local to the process containing
    the POA objects it is registered with.

    Contrast this with POA managers, for which the spec says:

    A POAManager object must not be exported to other processes,
    or externalized with ORB::object_to_string. If any attempt is
    made to do so, the offending operation will raise a MARSHAL
    system exception. An attempt to use a POAManager object with
    the DII may raise the NO_IMPLEMENT exception.

    To me, it looks like we should say the same thing for servant managers as
    for POA managers.

    And, by the same reasoning, I think it also must be said for the
    AdapterActivator interface: it doesn't make sense to marshal a reference
    for an adapter activator because the only operation (unknown_adapter) has
    an in parameter of type POA, which cannot come from a remote location.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 28 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merge into Issue 4264 and close this with the resolution of 4264.

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

Non-escaped keywords in published IDL

  • Key: CORBA24-95
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3685
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    I know that this is probably not the best RTF to send this to, but the
    issue spans RTFs and we don't have RTFs for the collection or the life cycle
    service, so I'm sending this to the Core RTF for want of a better task force...

    In the CosLifeCycle IDL (formal/98-10-01.idl), we have:

    module CosLifeCycle{

    typedef CosNaming::Name Key;
    typedef Object Factory;
    typedef sequence <Factory> Factories;

    The two occurences of "Factory" are illegal. According to the comment
    at the beginning of the module, this should read:

    module CosLifeCycle{

    typedef CosNaming::Name Key;
    #ifdef NO_ESCAPED_IDENTIFIERS
    typedef Object Factory;
    typedef sequence <Factory> Factories;
    #else
    typedef Object _Factory;
    typedef sequence <_Factory> Factories;
    #endif

    The same problem also appears in formal/98-10-15.idl.

    Also in formal/98-10-01.idl:

    // C o l l e c t i o n F a c t o r i e s
    interface CollectionFactories : CollectionFactory {
    boolean add_factory (
    in Istring collection_interface,
    in Istring impl_category,
    in Istring impl_interface,
    in CollectionFactory factory);

    // ...

    // R A C o l l e c t i o n F a c t o r i e s
    interface RACollectionFactories : RACollectionFactory {
    boolean add_factory (
    in Istring collection_interface,
    in Istring impl_category,
    in Istring impl_interface,
    in RACollectionFactory factory);

    Both operation definitions need the same #ifdef to map away from the
    "factory" keyword that is used as a parameter name.

    That same problem also appears in formal/98-10-03.idl.

    I guess the IDL in the formal CORBAservices documents should be fixed too.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 6 Jul 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix IDL as suggested

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

servant_to_id versus servant_to_reference

  • Key: CORBA24-94
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3636
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    This operation requires the USE_DEFAULT_SERVANT policy or a
    combination of the RETAIN policy and either the UNIQUE_ID or
    IMPLICIT_ACTIVATION policies; if not present, the WrongPolicy
    exception is raised.

    Note that there is nothing conditional here. If these policies are not
    present, the operation raises an exception.

    Compare this with servant_to_reference:

    This operation requires the RETAIN policy and either the
    UNIQUE_ID or IMPLICIT_ACTIVATION policies if invoked outside
    the context of an operation dispatched by this POA.

    Note that, in this case, we have a qualification:

    "... if invoked outside the context of an operation..."

    Why the difference between the two? They almost do the same thing, namely,
    map from a servant to an object ID. It's just that servant_to_reference,
    after it has the object ID, also embeds that object ID in a reference.

    So, shouldn't the two operations behave the same way? In particular,
    why should servant_to_id raise an exception if I call it from within the
    context of an executing operation on the specified servant?

    In other words, it seems that the behavior specified for servant_to_reference
    is correct and should apply equally to servant_to_id. In effect, calling
    the operation from withing an executing operation on the specified servant
    should do the same thing as calling get_object_id on the POA Current and
    use the resulting id.

    Am I missing something?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Mon, 22 May 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Valuetypes with multiple interfaces

  • Key: CORBA24-88
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3589
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    consider the following, which as valid IDL as best as I can figure out:

    interface I1 {};
    abstract valuetype V1 supports I1 {};

    interface I2 {};
    abstract valuetype V2 supports I2 {};

    interface I3 {};
    valuetype V3 : V1, V2 supports I3 {};

    The above raises some very interesting issues. For one, this can't be
    mapped into C++ for a number of reasons (largely having to do with
    ambiguous multiple inheritance). However, there much deeper issues here
    relating to the object model. Some questions:

    • What is the type of the a V3 instance?
    • What is the repository ID of that instance?
    • What is the return value of a call to _this()?
    • What is the result of invoking

    is_a("IDL:I1");
    is_a("IDL:I2");
    is_a("IDL:I3");

    on an I3 reference?

    • What are the results of I1::narrow(), I2::narrow(), and I3::narrow()
      on an I3 reference?
    • What is returned by a call to get_interface()?
    • What are the results of traversing the above in an IFR?

    There are probably more questions along these lines. They all aim at
    the fact that the above construct effectively creates an object that has
    multiple unrelated interfaces. This flies in the face of the CORBA
    type system, which fundamentally requires every object to have exactly
    one most-derived type.

    I think we need to put the axe through constructs such as the one above
    in a hurry!

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolve no change with explanation as above.

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

Incorrect use of negative fixed scale

  • Key: CORBA24-87
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3581
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Cisco Systems ( Paul Kyzivat)
  • Summary:

    In section 3.9.2 (of ptc/99-12-07) on semantics of constants,
    an example is given showing 3000.00D being of type fixed<1,-3>.
    This is inconsistent with statements elsewhere that fixed scale is a
    non-negative quantity.

    Also, the preceding explanation states: "... leading and trailing zeros are
    factored out, INCLUDING NON-SIGNIFICANT ZEROS BEFORE THE DECIMAL POINT."
    This rule of course leads to negative scale factors, so it must also be
    incorrect.

    Suggested Revision:

    Change the following text:

    "A fixed-point literal has the apparent number of total and fractional
    digits, except leading and trailing zeros are factored out, including
    non-significant zeros before the decimal point. For example, 0123.450d is
    considered to be fixed<5,2> and 3000.00d is fixed<3,-1>."

    to:

    "A fixed-point literal has the apparent number of total and fractional
    digits, except leading zeros before the decimal point and trailing zeros
    after the decimal point are factored out. For example, 0123.450d is
    considered to be fixed<5,2> and 3000.00d is fixed<4,0>."

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 25 Apr 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove the specification for stripping leading and trailing zeros, and fix the examples accordingly

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

Some problems

  • Key: CORBA24-91
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3612
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    I thought there are some error in Grammer which number are (24) and (27).
    The grammer which number is 24 in specification is
    <init_param_decls> ::= <init_param_decl>

    { "," <init_param_decl> }

    I thought it may be <init_param_decls> ::= <init_param_decl> { "," <init_param_decl> }

    *
    Can you see asterisk?

    And grammer number 27 is miss-printing.

    It is all of my question in grammer and next problem is in Preprocessing.
    User can use #include for source inclusion.
    But in case of C++, there are two kind of source inclusion. One is standard library inclusion using angle brackets.
    Another is using quotation mark.
    Is the rule adapted in IDL preprocessor?
    Could you send me a document about Preprocessing rule?

    Another question is #ifdef, #ifndef.
    Is this option able to be duplicated?

    Last question is about position of inclusion command.
    In some example in specification 2.3, I find this example.

    module M

    { #include <E.idl> }

    ;

    • from CORBA V2.3, June 1999, 10-43

    The source inclusion command - #incude - is in module block.
    How that source will be compiled and mapped?
    I thought that source is wrong....

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Mon, 15 May 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change with explanation as above.

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

ORB shutdown vs destroy

  • Key: CORBA24-90
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3608
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Borland Software Corporation ( Vishy Kasar)
  • Summary:

    CORBA2.3.1 section 4.11.5 destroy() has following information.

    Once an ORB is destroyed, another call to ORB_init with same ORBid will
    return a reference to a newly constructed ORB.

    My assumption here is if I call shutdown() on an ORB followed by
    ORB_init() with the same ORBid as of the shutdown ORB, I get the same
    ORB back. Essentially, we can not get rid of that ORB until destroy() is
    called. Is this a valid assumption? If so, can we add a sentence to that
    effect to shutdown() section?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 12 May 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue

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

POA servant_to_id inconsistent with servant_to_reference

  • Key: CORBA24-89
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3607
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Humboldt-Universitaet ( Martin von Loewis)
  • Summary:

    In CORBA 2.3, servant_to_id does not work if the POA has the RETAIN,
    MULTIPLE_ID, and NO_IMPLICIT_ACTIVATION policies, even if
    servant_to_id is invoked in the context of the specified servant.
    According to 11.3.8.20, such a call raises WrongPolicy.

    Inconsistent with that specification, it is apparently still possible
    to obtain the ID for that servant, using

    id = poa.reference_to_id(poa.servant_to_reference(self))

    This works since 11.3.8.21/3 supports all cases of currently-active
    servant, not only USE_DEFAULT_SERVANT

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 10 May 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Same as Issue 3636, and is fixed by the fix for 3636.

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

is_equivalent and policies

  • Key: CORBA24-86
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3566
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    How should is_equivalent() behave if I compare two references that denote
    the same object at the same location, using the same profiles, etc, but
    differ in the policies? Do differences in the policies affect the outcome?

    My gut feeling is that is_equivalent() should return false in this case
    because it uses reference identity, not object identity. However, we
    are rapidly approaching the point where is_equivalent() might as well
    unconditionally return false because we are adding more and more flavours
    of additional information into IORs as time goes by. Invocation policies,
    transaction policies, codesets, multiple profiles, optional components,
    etc, etc.

    Does is_equivalent() require a more precise definition in order to remain
    useful?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Sat, 15 Apr 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue

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

ValueMemberDef section omitted from CORBA 2.3.1 spec

  • Key: CORBA24-85
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3560
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    In the CORBA 2.3.1 99-10-07.pdf spec, where "The Interface Repository
    chapter has been updated based on CORE changes from
    ptc/98-09-04 and the Object by Value documents (orbos/98-01-18 and
    ptc/98-07-06).", ValueMemberDef is not fully documented.

    ValueMemberDef should have it's own section in the Interface Repository
    chapter but it does not. This would contain it's IDL and at least two
    subsections, one for the read interface and one for the write interface.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 13 Apr 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Missing section should be filled in

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

POA deactivate_object description is ambiguous

  • Key: CORBA24-82
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3449
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Borland Software Corporation ( Vishy Kasar)
  • Summary:

    CORBA 2.3.1 section 11.2.8.17 states that "An ObjectId which has been
    deactivated continues to process requests until there are no active
    requests for that ObjectId"

    In the short window where deactivate_object is called but object is not

    yet deactivated, the above sentence is open to interpretation. The 2
    interpretation are:

    1. Active requests are those requests that came before
    deactivate_object was called. In this case, POA continues to service
    those requests and throws OBJECT_NOT_EXIST for future requests if the
    object is not activable.

    2. Active requests are any requests. In this case, POA will continue
    to service requests that come even after deactivate_object was called
    as long as deactivation is not complete.

    So what is the intended interpretation? I suspect it is 1. If so, can we

    make this section clearly state that?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue

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

how are valid ORBids determined

  • Key: CORBA24-81
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3443
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Cisco Systems ( Paul Kyzivat)
  • Summary:

    Section 4.5.1 of the CORBA core document explains the ORBid argument to
    ORBinit. However, it is sufficiently vague to present implementation and
    usage problems.

    It says:

    "All ORBid strings other than the empty string are allocated
    by ORB administrators and are not managed by the OMG."

    It fails to define ORB administrator. This administrator could be the
    developer of the application calling the ORB, or it could be the
    administrator of the machine on which the ORB will run, or it could be the
    developer of the ORB itself. Each answer to this question may result in a
    different mechanism for determining if a supplied ORBid is valid.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate change and close issue

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

AbstractBase not declared.

  • Key: CORBA24-97
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3737
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Département Informatique & Réseaux ( Thomas Quinot)
  • Summary:

    The standard IDL files included in the corba/ subdirectory
    of the IDL text files archive, formal/00-04-01, should be compilable
    with any compliant IDL parser. Most notably, these files comprise
    a "corba/orb.idl" source file, whose inclusion in application
    IDL files is necessary whenever an application has to manipulate
    type CORBA::TypeCode (as mandated by section "3.14 CORBA module"
    of the CORBA specification v. 2.3).

    It is thus expected that the file corba/orb.idl be a legal
    IDL specification.

    This is not the case, because the corba/orb.idl files #includes
    a CORBA_Stream.idl file, which contains the following declaration:

    abstract valuetype DataOutputStream

    { [...] void write_Abstract (in AbstractBase value); [...] }

    In this declaration, the syntax of the language imposes that
    the name AbstractBase be interpreted as a <scoped_name>.
    This <scoped_name> is not defined in corba/orb.idl or any of
    the files it #includes.
    The declaration is therefore illegal.

    According to the CORBA 2.3 specification, section
    "4.2 The ORB operations", module CORBA contains a declaration
    "native AbstractBase".

    The following resolution is therefore proposed for this issue:

    In file corba/orb.idl, include the followinf declaration:

    native AbstractBase; // Chapter 4

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 4 Jul 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Declaration of native AbstractBase needs to be added to orb.idl as stated above.

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

Pragma version 2.3

  • Key: CORBA24-96
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3694
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Objective Interface Systems ( Mr. Bill Beckwith)
  • Summary:

    Since pragma version only applies to the name given in the
    pragma and not to anything in the scope of the name this
    means that the rep id of things like Bounds and BadKind are
    still "...:1.0":

    interface TypeCode { // PIDL

    1. pragma version TypeCode 2.3
      exception Bounds {};
      exception BadKind {};

    This is just one example of many things inside version 2.3
    pragma'ed scopes that are defaulting to 1.0.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 9 Jun 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

POA namespace and ORB ID

  • Key: CORBA24-80
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3441
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Ken Cavanaugh)
  • Summary:

    Section 4.6 of CORBA 2.3.1 addresses the meaning of the ORBid argument. It is clear
    that ORB_init can be called multiple times in the same address space resulting in
    different ORBs. I think the CORBA spec should make it clear that all of these ORBs
    have different POA namespaces. This should probably be indicated in section 11.2.3
    by stating something like:

    If an application makes use of multiple ORBs in the same address space, each
    ORB defines its own separate POA namespace. In particular, each ORB returns a
    distinct root POA in response to a resolve_initial_references( "RootPOA" )
    call.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarifying sentence is justified.

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

return type of TypeCode::fixed_scale()

  • Key: CORBA24-79
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3439
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: AdNovum Informatik ( Stefan Wengi)
  • Summary:

    in 10.7.1 the fixed_scale() operation is defined to return a short but
    the 'scale' value of a fixed type is defined to be a positive integer
    (in 3.4 (96)) and also in the C++ mapping.
    It seems to me there is some inconsistency here.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change.

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

Should POA spec examples use string_to_ObjectId?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3918
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: DSTC ( Stephen Crawley)
  • Summary:

    As I understand things, string_to_ObjectId is an artifact of the
    C++ POA mapping. It certainly isn't defined in the core POA spec.
    However, some of the example code in the POA spec uses this routine.
    Is this kosher? Shouldn't the relevant examples at least have a
    cross-reference to the C++ mapping?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 28 Sep 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolve no change

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

incomplete rules for forward declaration of structs/unions

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3751
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ICL ( Trevor Nash)
  • Summary:

    1. The phrase "the only recursion permitted for constructed types with the exception of value types" is confusing: a) valuetypes are not constructed types b) the definition of a valuetype may indeed be recursive, but then so can interfaces - why are these not mentioned? Are you trying to say something specific with regard to valuetypes?

    2. The cross reference in the first example should be 3.10.7 not 3.10.3.

    3. Why does the second paragraph on page 3-38 insist that a forward declared definition must follow "in the same source file"? While this is sensible I do not see the point in enforcing it (there is a separate rule about repository IDs which has a bearing). I couldn't find a statement requiring completion of forward interface and valuetype declarations to compare with - I have always assumed these must be satisfied too.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue

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

With reference to forward declarations of structs and unions.

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3749
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ICL ( Trevor Nash)
  • Summary:

    Clause 48 <constr_type_spec> in the syntax has been modified to include a choice <constr_forward_decl>. This does not in fact allow things like struct a; though that is the obvious intention. But it does allow bizarre stuff such as typedef struct a, array_of_a[100]; which IMHO should not be legal (I am not that keen on typedef struct a b

    I think this choice should be deleted from clause 48 and inserted in clause 42 <type_dcl> instead.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

ORB ID accessor

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3817
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    ORB_init allows me to specify an ORB ID, but there is no way to get that
    ORB ID back from an ORB. It seems wrong to force people to specify an
    object identity during object creation but to not allow access to that
    identity later.

    I would suggest to add an accessor to the ORB interface:

    interface ORB

    { ORBid id(); // ... }

    ;

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 8 Sep 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add the proposed accessor to ORB.

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

read_fixed() and write_fixed() methods missing

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3799
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Anita Jindal)
  • Summary:

    The org.omg.CORBA.DataInputStream and
    org.omg.CORBA.DataOutputStream do not define read_fixed() and
    write_fixed() methods. To enable custom marshalling/unmarshalling
    of the fixed data types, these methods should be added to the
    above classes.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 31 Aug 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue.

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

Values for CORBA::ARG_IN,... not defined

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3905
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Harold Carr)
  • Summary:

    This is a core issue.

    formal/99-10-07 (and orbrev/00-09-01) section 7.1.1 claims
    arg_modes is a bit mask with CORBA::ARG_IN, ... as possible values.
    The values are not defined in that document.

    The values defined in ptc/00-01-08 (IDL to Java mapping)
    section 1.19.4 do not look like bit masks:

    typedef unsigned long Flags;
    const Flags ARG_IN = 1;
    const Flags ARG_OUT = 2;
    const Flags ARG_INOUT = 3;
    const Flags CTX_RESTRICT_SCOPE = 15;

    This needs clarification (e.g., how wide is the bit mask, what
    are the values, or, if not a bit mask, a better definition).

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 20 Sep 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

module IOP_N needs a real name

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3877
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Harold Carr)
  • Summary:

    The interceptors specification, ptc/00-08-06, defines:

    IOP_N

    Issue: "_N" needs to be replaced with the correct version such that
    this module has a real name.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 19 Sep 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

"omg.org" prefix missing from interceptor specification and its reference

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3862
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Harold Carr)
  • Summary:

    The specification, ptc/00-08-06, defines the following modules:

    Dynamic
    IOP_N
    PortableInterceptor

    These modules reference the following modules:

    CORBA
    IOP
    Messaging

    The CORBA 2.4 specification, orbrev/00-09-01, only explicitly specifies:

    #pragma prefix "omg.org"

    for:

    DynamicAny (page 196)
    CORBA, the Interface Repository Case, (p 280)
    PortableServer (page 338)

    and the Messaging specification, orbos/98-05-05, specifies the prefix
    for messaging.

    ----------

    Proposed solution:

    Either explicitly add

    #pragma prefix "omg.org"

    before Dynamic, IOP_N, PortableInterceptor, CORBA (in general), and IOP

    OR

    Change, the second paragraph of 10.6.7 RepositoryIDs for OMG-Specified Types
    (page 270)

    from:

    "All official OMG IDL files shall contain the following pragma prefix
    directive:

    #pragma prefix "omg.org"

    unless said file already contains a pragma prefix identifying the
    original source of the file (e.g., "w3c.org")."

    to:

    "All official OMG IDL modules shall contain the following pragma prefix
    directive:

    #pragma prefix "omg.org"

    unless said file already contains a pragma prefix identifying the
    original source of the module (e.g., "w3c.org")."

    ----------

    Discussion:

    Perhaps we can interpret 10.6.7 above to mean already mean the all
    official OMG modules have the "omg.org" prefix. In that case, there
    is no issue.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 19 Sep 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    The last sentence of the summary states the way things are, so there really is no issue here

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

Initializers and user exceptions

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3781
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: IONA ( Mark Spruiell)
  • Summary:

    The IDL grammar does not allow valuetype initializers to be declared
    as raising user exceptions, which seems like a potentially useful thing
    to do. Was this possibility considered and rejected for some reason?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 9 Aug 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No won for B above so this issue is closed no change.

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

IDL: Clashes with inherited identifiers

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3768
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: AT&T ( Duncan Grisby)
  • Summary:

    Is the following IDL legal?

    interface A

    { void B(); }

    ;
    interface B : A {};

    Interface B has an inherited operation named B. Whether it is legal or
    not depends on whether the inherited operation is considered "defined"
    within interface B.

    This issue is subtly different from the discussions in issue 3525.
    Operations and attributes are more strongly "introduced" into the
    inherited interface than type declarations are, since inherited type
    declarations can be overridden, but operations and attributes cannot.

    I think the IDL specification should be clarified to state whether the
    above IDL is legal or not.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Mon, 31 Jul 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change with explanation as above.

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

Nested Recursive Structs Legal in 2.3.x?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3764
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Perot Systems ( Bill Binko)
  • Summary:

    Given the IDL below, is the third case (labeled "Nested Recursive
    Case") legal in CORBA 2.3.x? (I understand that the answers to my questions
    may change in 2.4: I am interested in possible flaws in 2.3 at the moment).
    If it is legal, I have some concerns listed after the IDL:

    //IDL
    module recurse
    {
    //Recursive Struct: This is legal
    struct TestStruct1

    { sequence<TestStruct1> list; }

    ;
    // Nested Struct: This is legal
    struct TestStruct2 {
    struct TestStruct3

    { long threeMember; }

    twoMember;
    };
    // Nested Recursive Case: IS THIS LEGAL?
    struct One {
    struct Two

    { sequence<One> twoMember; }

    oneMember;
    };
    };

    1) If this IDL is loaded into an IFR, and the type() method of the StructDef
    for ::recurse::One::Two is called, what should happen? I can think of at
    least three interpretations of the spec (in particular, section 10.5) :

    a) type() should fail since the TypeCode for Two is not valid
    outside of the definition of One. If this is the case, what should it
    throw? (the natural result of many implementations would be MARSHAL, but
    that seems wrong)

    b) type() should succeed and should include a complete, valid
    TypeCode of the form:

    //BEGIN TYPECODE//
    Struct_tc(Two)
    MemberList
    StructMember
    twoMember,
    TypeCode: Struct_tc(One)
    MemberList
    StructMember
    oneMember,
    TypeCode: Recursive_tc("IDL:recurse/One/Two:1.0")
    //END TYPECODE//

    c) type() should succeed and should include a complete, valid
    TypeCode of the form:

    //BEGIN TYPECODE//
    Struct_tc(Two)
    MemberList
    StructMember
    twoMember,
    TypeCode: Struct_tc(One)
    MemberList
    StructMember
    oneMember,
    TypeCode: Struct_tc(Two)
    MemberList
    StructMember
    twoMember,
    TypeCode: Recursive_tc("IDL:recurse/One:1.0")
    //END TYPECODE//

    2) Similarly, what should the behavior be when the type() method on the
    generated structs (or their Helper classes in Java) are called? In
    particular, at what point is the ORB responsible for "embedding" the
    recursive TypeCode in its enclosing TypeCode as specified by section 10.7.3
    "Creating TypeCodes"?

    For example, given the following code (in Java, but applied to other
    languages):

    TypeCode recursiveTC = orb.create_recursive_tc("IDL:recurse/One:1.0");

    org.omg.CORBA.StructMember[] members = new
    org.omg.CORBA.StructMember[1];
    members[0] = new org.omg.CORBA.StructMember("twoMember",
    _orb().create_sequence_tc(0, recursiveTC), null);
    /1/ TypeCode twoType = _orb().create_struct_tc(id(), "Two", members);

    members = new org.omg.CORBA.StructMember[1];
    members[0] = new org.omg.CORBA.StructMember("oneMember", twoType,
    null);
    /2/ TypeCode oneType = _orb().create_struct_tc(id(), "One", members);

    If 1 attempted to resolve the recursive TC, it would fail.
    If 2 attempted to resolve the recursive TC, it would succeed, but would
    have to traverse all of twoType's members to see if there was a recursive TC
    in there.

    Any other thoughts on this issue would be appreciated.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change with explanation as above.

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

reference_to_servant raises ObjectNotActive, WrongAdapter, and WrongPolicy

  • Key: CORBA24-99
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3739
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Anita Jindal)
  • Summary:

    1. According to CORBA V2.3 spec, 99-10-07.pdf, section 11.3.8.22,
    reference_to_servant raises ObjectNotActive, WrongAdapter, and WrongPolicy
    exceptions.

    This is inconsistent with the method signature specified in the poa.idl (section
    11.4). According to the idl the reference_to_servant raises only
    ObjectNotActive and WrongPolicy exceptions.

    It is requested that the signature of reference_to_servant in poa.idl be changed
    to match the description in section 11.3.8.22.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 5 Jul 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix the editorial error

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

Missing exception for activation

  • Key: CORBA24-98
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3738
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    For explicit activation, the spec says:

    11.3.8.15 activate_object

    ObjectId activate_object(in Servant p_servant)
    raises (ServantAlreadyActive, WrongPolicy);

    This operation requires the SYSTEM_ID and RETAIN policy; if not
    present, the WrongPolicy exception is raised.

    And:

    11.3.8.16 activate_object_with_id

    void activate_object_with_id(
    in ObjectId oid,
    in Servant p_servant)
    raises (ObjectAlreadyActive, ServantAlreadyActive, WrongPolicy);

    This operation requires the RETAIN policy; if not present, the
    WrongPolicy exception is raised.

    Neither section says that IMPLICT_ACTIVATION would be required.

    The intent for IMPLICIT_ACTIVATION was that it permits implicit activation
    as well as explicit activation. However, I can infer this only by reading
    between the lines. In particular, in section 11.2.7, the intent is never
    made clear.

    I would suggest to change the the text in section 11.2.7 from:

    When a POA supports implicit activation, an inactive servant may
    be implicitly activated in that POA by certain operations that
    logically require an Object Id to be assigned to that servant.
    Implicit activation of...

    to read:

    When a POA supports implicit activation, an inactive servant may
    be implicitly activated in that POA by certain operations that
    logically require an Object Id to be assigned to that servant.
    (IMPLICIT_ACTIVATION does not disallow explicit activation; instead,
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    it enables both implicit and explicit activation.)
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Implicit activation of...

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 5 Jul 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    The proposed clarification is in order.

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

There is inconsistency in the POA.IDL and description in section 11.3.8.19

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3743
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Anita Jindal)
  • Summary:

    There is inconsistency in the POA.IDL and description in section 11.3.8.19
    in formal/99-10-07.pdf.

    According to poa.idl the signature for create_reference_with_id is:

    Object create_reference_with_id ( in ObjectId oid,
    in CORBA::RepositoryId intf )
    raises (WrongPolicy);

    whereas, section 11.3.8.19 completely omits this exception in the
    signature and does not even describe under what condition it is raised.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    The POA IDL should be fixed by removing the raises(WrongPolicy) clause

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

description of unknown_adapter

  • Legacy Issue Number: 3740
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Anita Jindal)
  • Summary:

    2. According to CORBA V2.3 spec, 99-10-07.pdf, section 11.3.3.2
    description of unknown_adapter, indicates that:
    " The implementation of this operation should either create the specified
    POA and return TRUE, or it should return FALSE. If the operation returns TRUE,
    the ORB will proceed with processing the request. If the operation returns
    FALSE,
    the ORB will return OBJECT_NOT_EXIST to the client."

    In Section 11.3.8.3, find_POA specifies the following:

    "If a child POA with the specified name does not exist and the value of
    the activate_it parameter is TRUE, the target POA's AdapterActivator,
    if one exists, is invoked, and, if it successfully activates the child POA,
    that child POA is returned. Otherwise, the AdapterNonExistent exception is
    raised."

    Since find_POA itself invokes the unknown_adapter() method on the
    AdapterActivator.
    If the unknow_adapter() returns false, the find_poa() should throw an
    OBJECT_NOT_EXIST exception. This is not very clear from explanation in
    section 11.3.8.3.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 5 Jul 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clearly the current text potentially leads readers astray, so clarify it as shown below:

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

local interfaces and the DII

  • Key: CORBA24-61
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3177
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    The current spec for local interfaces disallows making calls to a local
    interface via the DII. It turns out that this is rather inconvenient
    for implementors of scripting languages. That's because, for a scripting
    language, everything is a DII request. Local interfaces, therefore, force
    the implementor to wrap all pseudo-objects and local interfaces in
    special wrapper objects.

    For pseudo-objects, there is nothing we can do. However, for local
    interfaces, we could require DII calls to be supported.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 5 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, see above

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

servant_to_id

  • Key: CORBA24-60
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3174
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    the following text in the spec could be made a bit clearer:

    2. If the POA has the IMPLICIT_ACTIVATION policy and either the
    POA has the MULTIPLE_ID policy or the specified servant is not
    active, the servant is activated using a POA-generated Object Id
    and the Interface Id associated with the servant, and that Object
    Id is returned.

    Although it is stated elsewhere that IMPLICIT_ACTIVATION requires SYSTEM_ID,
    it wouldn't hurt to reflect this here too:

    2. If the POA has the IMPLICIT_ACTIVATION policy and either the
    POA has the MULTIPLE_ID policy or the specified servant is not
    active and the POA has the SYSTEM_ID policy, the servant is
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    activated using a POA-generated Object Id
    and the Interface Id associated with the servant, and that Object
    Id is returned.

    Another question:

    What should be returned if the USER_ID policy is present?

    The spec doesn't say. Given that we can't add a new user exception,
    OBJ_ADAPTER seems appropriate.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 4 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close with no change, since a POA cannot have IMPLICIT_ACTIVATION and USER_ID.

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

IDL scoping rules

  • Key: CORBA24-59
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3173
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    on page 3-48, we have:

    On the other hand, if module Inner2 were:

    module Inner2

    { typedef Inner1::S1 S2; // Inner1 introduced typedef string inner1; // Error typedef string S1; // OK }

    ;

    The definition of inner1 is now an error because the identifier
    Inner1 referring to the module Inner1 has been introduced in the
    scope of module Inner2 in the first line of the module declaration.
    Also, the declaration of S1 in the last line is OK since the
    identifier S1 was not introduced into the scope by the use of
    Inner1::S1 in the first line.

    This is fine, but it doesn't make it clear that, if the name is qualified,
    it is not introduced into the scope.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Sun, 2 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Additional clarifying words are needed as shown below.

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

mixing giop versions

  • Key: CORBA24-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2822
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The spec is currently unclear on when and how messages with different
    giop versions may share a single connection.

    This has already been discussed, with different RTF members holding
    positions running the range from: "all messages on a connection must
    have the same giop version" to "messages with differing giop versions
    must be permitted on the same connection". So clearly there is an issue.

    The resolution of this issue should address at least the following
    unclear points:

    1) suppose a client orb supporting giop 1.2 initiates an invocation on
    an IOR with iiop version 1.1. As a result, it establishes a new
    connection and sends the request using giop 1.1. Later, the same client
    obtains another IOR referencing the same transport address, but
    specifying iiop version 1.0.

    • may the same connection be used to send a request to the new IOR?
    • if so, what giop version should be used to send the request?

    2) Later, the same client obtains another IOR referencing the same
    transport address, but specifying iiop version 1.2.

    • may the same connection be used to send a request to the new IOR?
    • if so, what giop version should be used to send the request
    • if so, what giop version should be used to send subsequent requests
      to the IORs mentioned in (1).

    3) Imagine a day in the not too distant future, when giop 1.3 has been
    approved and implemented. A client that supports giop 1.3 obtains an IOR
    with iiop version 1.2, establishes a new connection, and then sends a
    request using giop 1.2. A service context offering bidirectional giop is
    sent with this request, and accepted by the server. The client provides
    the server (that supports giop 1.3) with a callback IOR that has iiop
    version 1.3, and the server attempts to call back on it.

    • may the callback use the incoming connection?
    • if so, what giop version should the request use?
    • if so using v1.2, what if the callback request requires a feature
      only available in giop 1.3?
  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Mon, 26 Jul 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed in interop/2000-01-01

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

interop issue: what system exceptions may be raised on GIOP 1.0?

  • Key: CORBA24-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2819
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: An issue we"ve run across is enumerating the set of system exceptions
    that are valid to be passed via GIOP 1.0 (and similarly for 1.1, and
    1.2). This is important for implementations of GIOP, which are, for
    instance, attempting to map wire exceptions to C++ exceptions, and is
    also important for packet-sniffing implementations.

    Since many conforming GIOP 1.0 implementations were built (and bought)
    and incorporated into products before various CORBA system exceptions
    were added to the Core, it seems that servers should not raise `newer"
    exceptions back to older clients – that is, clients speaking GIOP 1.0.
    Instead, they should map those `newer" exceptions to UNKNOWN, I"d guess.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Wed, 21 Jul 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed in interop/2000-01-01

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

The syntax for stringified IORs in section 13.6.6

  • Key: CORBA24-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2796
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The syntax for stringified IORs in section 13.6.6 shows: =
    "IOR:" The problem is that URL scheme names are supposed to be case
    insensitive. So, "Ior:"
    or "ioR:" should be allowed to. I would suggest to add a footnote to
    state that case for the scheme name is ignored.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed in interop/2000-01-01

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

creation of arguments to TypeCode creation ops

  • Key: CORBA24-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2907
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: DSTC ( Stephen Crawley)
  • Summary:

    It is not clear from section 10.7.3 of CORBA 2.3 how much param checking
    the ORB operations for TypeCode creation should do. It is also unclear
    whether only the BAD_PARAM exception should be raised, or whether some
    others are legitimate; e.g. BAD_TYPECODE.

    Here are some detailed questions on TypeCode creation argument checking:

    1) should the operations that take a "name" argument check that it
    is a valid IDL name? A non null string?

    2) should the operations that take a "RepositoryId" argument check
    that it has a recognisable format?

    3) should the operations that take content and member types as
    parameters check that they are legitimate; i.e. that they
    don't have kinds tk_null, tk_void or tk_exception.

    4) should the operations that take members check that the member
    names are valid IDL names and that they are unique within the
    member list?

    5) should create_union_tc check that there are no duplicate label
    values? Should it check that the labels' TypeCodes are equal to
    discriminator TypeCode? Or equivalent?

    6) should create_union_tc check that the supplied discriminator
    type is legitimate?

    There are probably more cases as well.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 14 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

DynFixed editorial issue

  • Key: CORBA24-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2906
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Progress Software ( Steve Vinoski)
  • Summary:

    In the CORBA 2.3 spec for DynFixed::set_value (page 9-14) it says, "If val
    contains a value whose scale exceeds that of the DynFixed or is not
    initialized, the operation raises InvalidValue."

    Later in the same paragraph it says, "If val has more fractional digits
    than can be represented in the DynFixed, fractional digits are truncated
    and the return value is false."

    Given that the term "scale" is used with the fixed-point type to describe
    the number of fractional digits, these two quoted sentences are confusing
    and appear to contradict one another.

    I propose changing the first quoted sentence to: "If val contains a value
    whose number of digits exceeds the maximum number of digits specified by
    the TypeCode of the DynFixed, or if val is not initialized, the operation
    raises InvalidValue."

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Wed, 29 Sep 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Wchar as discriminator in union

  • Key: CORBA24-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2859
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Just got a question from our IDL compiler folks - I think they"ve
    found a bug in the 2.3 IDL chapter..... (actually the bug has been there
    for a while)..

    Looking at the new CORBA2.3 book,

    The syntax for discriminated unions are described on two pages (3-16 and
    3-36).
    On both pages the <wchar_type> isn"t included in the grammar for
    <switch_type_spec>. Therefore my conclusion was that it shouldn"t be
    allowed. The problem is that further down on page 3-36 there is a table
    for "case label matching" and in that table wchar is listed as a
    discriminator type.

    So, was the wchar type forgotten from the grammar for switch type spec,
    or
    was wchar mistakenly added to the table?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Thu, 26 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

CORBA 2.3: minor editorial issue

  • Key: CORBA24-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2849
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: On page 4-5 of CORBA 2.3 the deprecated create_recursive_sequence_tc
    operation is missing its open parenthesis for its parameter list.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Fri, 13 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

chapter 3 and recursion

  • Key: CORBA24-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2848
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: CORBA 2.3, chapter 3, section 3.10.2, page 3-35 says: "Although the IDL
    syntax allows the generation of recursive constructed type specifications,
    the only recursion permitted for constructed types is through the use of
    the sequence template type." With the introduction of valuetypes, this is
    no longer true. A valuetype is allowed to have a member of its own type,
    either directly or indirectly.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Fri, 13 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

URLs interact poorly with code set selection

  • Key: CORBA24-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2900
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Cisco Systems ( Paul Kyzivat)
  • Summary:

    The corbaname & corbaloc url formats provide a situation where an IOR
    designating a server is created and used by a client without input by
    that server.

    One (optional) element of an IOR is a CodeSetComponent specifying the
    code sets that the server is willing/able to utilize. Normally these are
    examined by a client and used to select a pair of code sets (narrow and
    wide) to be used for communication between client and server.

    Chapter 13 of the Corba spec states: "If the code set component is not
    present in a multi-component profile structure, then the deault char
    code set is ISO 8859-1 for backward compatibility. However, there is no
    default wchar code set. If a server supports interfaces that use wide
    character data but does not specify the wchar code sets that it
    supports, client-side ORBs will raise exception INV_OBJREF."

    This seems to imply one of the following:
    1) URLs may not be used to reference interfaces that employ wide
    characters;
    2) URLs must generate IORs with a code set component supporting
    wchar data;
    3) The CORE must be changed to relax the above restrictio

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 5 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Why are Standard Exceptions defined in IDL chapter?

  • Key: CORBA24-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2898
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Jishnu Mukerji [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    I was wondering why the Standard Exception definitions are in Chapter 3 IDL
    Syntax and Semantics. Shouldn't they be better in Chapter 4 ORB Interfaces?
    I would like to get a feel for how the RTF membership feels about moving the
    entire section 3.21 from Chapter 3 to Chapter 4.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

What is the RepId of Object?

  • Key: CORBA24-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2896
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    "Can someone please clue me in as to what the
    > repository ID of Object is? Is it "IDL:omg.org/CORBA/Object:1.0"? Or is
    > it "IDL:omg.org/Object:1.0"?"

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 20 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

DataInputStream specification is inefficient for Java

  • Key: CORBA24-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2892
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: This issue is for the Core RTF. Although it shows up in the context of Java,
    fixing it requires a change to an API defined in the CORBA core.

    The CORBA::DataInputStream type (part of the CORBA core) is specified in
    a way that makes it extremely inefficient to implement in Java. A small
    change to this IDL definition would reduce the number of Java classes needed
    to implement it from 27 to 1. (Really!)

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Fri, 17 Sep 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

POA exception minor codes

  • Key: CORBA24-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2861
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: There are several cases in the POA specification where the POA is required to
    raise system exceptions. We should assign OMG minor exception codes to
    each of these cases so that applications can diagnose these conditions
    better.

    Examples:

    1. POA has the USE_DEFAULT_SERVANT policy but no servant is assigned, the
    POA raises OBJ_ADAPTER.

    2. If no adapter activator is available (or the available one refuses to
    create a POA), the OBJECT_NOT_EXIST exception is raised.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Use of incomplete recursive TypeCodes underspecified

  • Key: CORBA24-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2903
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: DSTC ( Stephen Crawley)
  • Summary:

    Section 10.7.3 of the CORBA 2.3 spec says that operations on recursive
    TypeCodes and recursive sequence TypeCodes before they have been embedded
    give undefined results.

    However, it is not clear whether this applies to other uses of these
    TypeCodes ... or other incomplete TypeCodes or Anys that contain them. For
    example, can an incomplete TypeCode be used:

    • as a parameter to create_dyn_any_from_type_code,
    • as a parameter to a DII or DSI operation; e.g. the arg_type parameter
      of CORBA::Request::add_arg(), or
    • as a (CORBA IDL) parameter or result of a regular operation invocation?
  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 14 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Semantics of DynAny with alias TypeCodes

  • Key: CORBA24-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2901
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: DSTC ( Stephen Crawley)
  • Summary:

    The CORBA 2.3 spec for DynAny makes no mention whatsoever of how it should
    handle Any values corresponding to TypeCodes whose kind is tk_alias.

    The implementation of (CORBA 2.2) DynAny in a popular free ORB strips off
    typecode aliases when it creates a DynAny. While this seems to be contrary to
    the overall intent of the DynAny spec, I can find nothing in the 2.2 or 2.3
    spec that definitively precludes this (IMO bogus) behaviour.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 14 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

ambiguity in wstrings having a Unicode escape sequence

  • Key: CORBA24-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2847
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: According to the spec, a wide string may contain one or
    more Unicode escape sequences of the form \uxxxx, where
    the x"s are hex digits. It also says that such an
    escape sequence may not have the value 0, and that
    leading 0s are optional in the hex digits.
    Taking all this into account, how does a parser
    tell the difference between (imaginary parentheses
    inserted to show the writer"s intent)

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Fri, 13 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

POA: false placement of paragraph

  • Key: CORBA24-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2846
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In CORBA 2.3, chapter 11.3.8.11 (docs/formal/99-07-15.pdf, p. 11-35):
    seems to me as if the paragraph that was added to the description of
    get_servant_manager() is really intended for set_servant_manager().

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Sun, 15 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

formal/99-08-01.txt missing pragmas

  • Key: CORBA24-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2909
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    The ORB Core IDL extracted in formal/99-08-01.txt is missing the various
    '#pragma' definitions for the IFR interfaces.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 12 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

CORBA::ORB::RequestSeq definition obsolete

  • Key: CORBA24-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2908
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    CORBA 2.3 added the CORBA::RequestSeq definition to orb.idl. The C++
    mapping defines CORBA::ORB::RequestSeq, which is now redundant and
    should be removed.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 12 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

OBV interface support inconsistencies

  • Key: CORBA24-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2844
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: CORBA 2.3 chapter 3.8.5 (docs/formal/99-07-07.pdf, p. 3-27) claims that
    a stateful value can only support a single interface.

    CORBA 2.3 chapter 5.2 (docs/formal/99-07-09.pdf, p. 5-2) claims that
    a concrete (stateful) value can support multiple interfaces.

    The latter is obviously wrong.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Sun, 15 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

${issue.summary}

  • Key: CORBA24-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2828
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:
  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Mon, 2 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved in interop RTF

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

Use UNICODE Character set

  • Key: CORBA23-59
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2372
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: I am member of the nation using another set of accented Latin letters than is LATIN-1 standard (ISO 8859.1), namely LATIN-2. For this reason, I must comment your preference of one particular character set as an unfortunate case. I would understand, that if you would limit character set to basic Latin characters of the basic ASCII code, but preference of one national enhancements of this code brings my doubts.
    In fact, the problem is not so hot, as it may seem on the first view. I know at present no classical compiler allowing use of the national character set e.g. for the language identifiers, and the limitation of the character sets to pure Latin characters is considered by Czech (and other nation"s) programmers as no significant limitation, with exception of the comments. The same concerns CORBA identifiers used in the OMG IDL language.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 2 Feb 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close issue in 2.4 with no change.

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

Issue - no PIDL, just language bindings

  • Key: CORBA23-58
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2371
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In section 7.3.2 of CORBA 2.3a (ptc/98-10-07 pg 7-9) the description of
    send_multiple_requests gives the C, C++, and SmallTalk bindings for the
    operation but does not describe it in PIDL. This is inconsistent with
    the description style for other operations. It is unnecessarily biased
    towards these particular languages, and complicates the process of
    maintaining the specifications of the individual language bindings.

    The same comment applies to section 7.3.4 regarding get_next_response.
    In this case the language binding is in fact inconsistent with that
    published in the C++ language binding.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 2 Feb 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes in 2.4 and close issue and raise new issue in C++ RTF

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

Try to define obligatory and optional parts of the CORBA specification.

  • Key: CORBA23-61
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2378
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: This comment uses examples from the chapter 3, but its idea concernes style of the all specification, as a general rule.
    6) In the version CORBA 2.2, there were introduced new features and new simple data type. I understand, that such types like long long and/or long double may be key parts for some application. On the other hand, majority of applications need not such data types, and I see no reason to introduce them as obligatory to all CORBA implementations. For this reason, try to difference various features as obligatory for any CORBA compliant implementation and other ones as optional.
    In general, it is good idea to specify advanced features of this system to unify various its implementators, but, on the other hand, why those features are made obligatory? For this reason, try to define obligatory and optional parts of the CORBA specification.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 2 Feb 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close in 2.4 with no change.

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

Application Interface issue

  • Key: CORBA23-60
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2377
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: During study of the ORBIX software, I analyzed structure of internal stubs generated by IDL compiler on the both client and server side of the CORBA connection. I appreciated, that for creation of the both sides are used the same constructions like Request object, not different objects Request on the client side and ServerRequest on the server side. Naturally, there was also possibility to use CORBA compliant ServerRequest object when requested, but generated stubs used "old" IONA logic. May be, there are some sophisticated reasons why OMG specification use various objects on both client and server sides which I do not know, but in general, I prefer more simple approach of IONA. Please, let application interface as simple as possible.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 2 Feb 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is adequately dealt with in the POA specification.

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

No description for NativeDef

  • Key: CORBA23-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2322
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 10.5.26, NativeDef, has no description of its read and write
    interfaces. This is inconsistent with other sections.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Provide description

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

Errors in figure 10-2

  • Key: CORBA23-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2321
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: On page 10-8, the section of figure 10-2 describing the module object
    has become wrongly ordered when the green text was inserted. It says:

    InterfaceDef
    ValueDef
    ValueBoxDef
    ModuleDef

    It should say:

    ModuleDef
    ValueBoxDef
    InterfaceDef

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    fix the order and indentation

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

Forward-Declared Interfaces

  • Key: CORBA23-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2340
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: there just has been raging discussion on the OB list about forward-declared
    interfaces. The words we have right now are inadequate. You could argue that the
    interface is defined in the same "specification" here. However,
    current IDL compilers (if they implmement the check at all) require
    the interface to be defined in the same compilation unit as the
    forward declaration.

    Now, we could allow a forward-declared interface to not be defined in
    the same compilation unit, but then, I think, we would have to very
    carefully specify what sort of things I can do with the forward-declared
    interface. (If we don"t do that, we"ll make separate compilation impossible
    because the compiler doesn"t know the size of a forward-declared interface
    nor its base interfaces.)

    What"s the general feeling here? I think we could simple change "specification"
    to "IDL source file" and be done with it. That"s the simple way out.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 22 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Value base and the IFR

  • Key: CORBA23-54
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2334
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Consider the following IDL:

    // IDL
    interface I

    { void op(in ValueBase vb); }

    ;

    How is this represented in the IFR? What is the IDLType of the vb
    parameter?

    I think it should be a PrimitiveDef, just as it would be the case if I
    would pass "Object" instead of "ValueBase". However, there is no
    pk_ValueBase defined. Shouldn"t this be added?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add value base to primitive defs.

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

Clarifications needed in section 5.2.2

  • Key: CORBA23-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2332
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In section 5.2.2 it states in the second paragraph that instances of
    valuetypes passed into valuetype methods are passed by reference (in a
    programming language sense). That"s fine, but:

    1. This paragraph should also state that returned results are passed
    by reference. This is necessary to ensure consistent IDL
    valuetype semantics across different implementation languages.

    2. The last sentence of the following paragraph is confusing because
    it appears to contradict the statement in the second paragraph
    about reference semantics. It says that "normal semantics for the
    programming language in question apply". So if I have a language
    that only does pass-by-value, pass-by-value semantics would apply
    (so this says). This cannot be correct, since it would prevent
    valuetypes from having well-defined semantics at the IDL level.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix it.

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

Clarify text in section 15.3.7

  • Key: CORBA23-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2331
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: On page 15-26, last sentence of section 15.3.7, the phrase "The abstract
    encoding of value type" is not very clear. This refers to abstract
    interfaces, but a reader might think it refers to abstract valuetypes.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate change in 2.4 and close issue

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

Grammar section 3.9.2 missing "float" rules, and other problems

  • Key: CORBA23-57
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2343
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 3.9.2 has the following problems:

    No rules for combining floats are given, although double and long double types are mentioned.

    The rules for sizing intermediate forms of constant expressions that must result in an octet type
    are unspecified.

    The size a positive integer constant is required to have is not specified; I imagine it should be
    restricted to (at most) an "unsigned long" size, as larger sizes would not make valid array indices
    in several languages.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 25 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Sumsume this issue in 1139, and close this issue with that annotation in 2.4.

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

Calling get_response twice?

  • Key: CORBA23-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2341
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: What if I call get_response on a request a second time, after I"ve already
    retrieved the response previously? It seems that an exception should
    be raised but the spec doesn"t say which one.

    Also, the spec could be interpreted right now to say that it"s OK to
    call get_response twice for the same request (because the spec says nothing
    about that). However, to me, permitting this would be silly because it would
    oblige the ORB to keep the reply around until the request object is destroyed
    or is used to initiate another request.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 22 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

No description for ValueBoxDef

  • Key: CORBA23-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2325
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 10.5.25, ValueBoxDef, has no description of its read and write
    interfaces. This is inconsistent with other sections.

    Proposed resolution:

    Add copies of sections 10.5.13.1 and 10.5.13.2 here.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Provide description

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

is_a description is wrong

  • Key: CORBA23-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2323
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: On page 10-36, the "is_a" description is wrong. "interface_id" should
    be "value_id" for consistency with the IDL.

    Actually, it would be more correct to name this "value_or_interface_id"
    or just "id" since both values and interfaces can be passed to the is_a
    method of ValueDef. This requires changing the IDL on pages 10-34 and
    10-65.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes in 2.4 and close issue.

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

Error in text describing TypeCode interface

  • Key: CORBA23-51
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2330
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The IDL on page 10-47 describing the TypeCode interface says that
    the member_count, member_name, and member_type operations apply to
    tk_except TypeCodes. However, the text on page 10-49 says that
    these do not apply to exception TypeCodes.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix it.

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

RMI Repository ID missing from section 10.6

  • Key: CORBA23-50
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2329
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 10.6 needs to be updated to reflect the addition of RMI
    Hashed Format RepositoryIds.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    change introductory sentence to fix this problem in section 10.6

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

Text was inserted in wrong place

  • Key: CORBA23-49
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2328
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: On page 10-9, the recently added second paragraph should be moved to the
    bottom of the section. The parapgraph preceding it and the two paragraphs
    following it refer back to numbered points 1, 2 and 3 at the bottom of
    page 10-8, so this block of text should not be broken up.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Make it so

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

Error in ValueDef IDL

  • Key: CORBA23-48
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2327
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: On page 10-35, the first line should be "RepositoryId supported_interface;".

    Also, on page 10-65, the eleventh member of FullValueDescription should be
    "RepositoryId supported_interface;" (same change).

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    The resolution of this is tied to the resolution of issue 2314. So this issue is attached to and sub

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

Domain manager related specification shortcoming(s) (01)

  • Key: CORBA23-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1153
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: 1) The specification lacks any operations for moving an object reference
    from one domain manager to another, thus making the domain manager
    abstraction less useful as a means for managing allocation of policies
    to groups of object references, the memberships of which change over a
    period of time.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is included in the mandatory requirements of the Security Domain Membership Management R

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

Operation to add to CORBA::ORB pseudo-object

  • Key: CORBA23-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 991
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The following operations should be added to the CORBA::ORB
    pseudo-object:

    module CORBA {
    interface ORB

    { ... typedef sequence<octet> SerializedData; typedef unsigned long SerializedEncoding; const SerializedEncoding CDR_ENCODING = 0; SerializedData serialize(in Any data, in SerializedEncoding how); Any unserialize(in SerializedData data, in SerializedEncoding how); ... }

    ;
    };

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 4 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change in 2.4

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

Semantics of system exception completion_status

  • Key: CORBA23-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1315
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The CORBA 2.2 spec says the following about completion_status:

    Each standard exception also includes a completion_status code which
    takes one of the values

    {COMPLETED_YES, COMPLETED_NO, COMPLETED_MAYBE}

    .
    These have the following meanings:

    COMPLETED_YES The object implementation has completed processing prior
    to the
    exception being raised.
    COMPLETED_NO The object implementation was never initiated prior to the
    exception
    being raised.
    COMPLETED_MAYBE The status of implementation completion is
    indeterminate.

    These definitions do not cover the case where the standard exception was
    raised by the object implementation itself.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 11 May 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

resolve_initial_references under-specified

  • Key: CORBA23-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1156
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: resolve_initial_references can raise an InvalidName exception. However,
    the text in section 4.5 does not attach any semantics to that exception
    (in fact, it does not mention the exception at all).

    The spec needs to state explicitly when InvalidName should be raised.
    Presumably, the intent was that it would be raised for unknown ObjectIds,
    such as "XXXX".

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Needs no further action in Core RTF. Close this issue no change.

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

Domain Manager related specification shortcoming (02)-ConstructionPolicy

  • Key: CORBA23-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1154
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: 2) The associated ConstructionPolicy object does not provide any
    facility for allocating an object reference to any domain manager other
    than the domain manager to which the creator (if an object) belongs or a
    completely new domain manager.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is included in the mandatory requirements of the Security Domain Membership management R

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

(CORBA Core) Data streams missing arrays of long double

  • Key: CORBA24-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2912
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Dan Frantz)
  • Summary:

    DataInputStream and DataOutputStream (CORBA 2.3, Section 5.5.2) has
    definitions for reading and writing individual items and arrays of
    primitive data types except long double. This seems to be an
    oversight.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Wed, 22 Sep 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Problem with text of POAManager::deactivate()

  • Key: CORBA24-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2911
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    The first paragraph of 11.3.2.6 says:

    This operation changes the state of the POA manager to inactive. If
    issued while the POA manager is in the inactive state, the
    AdapterInactive exception is raised. Entering the inactive state causes
    the associated POAs to reject requests that have not begun to be
    executed as well as any new requests.

    But the last paragraph says:

    If deactivate is called multiple times before destruction is complete
    (because there are active requests), the etherealize_objects parameter
    applies only to the first call of deactivate; subsequent calls with
    conflicting etherealize_objects settings will use the value of the
    etherealize_objects from the first call. The wait_for_completion
    parameter will be handled as defined above for each individual call
    (some callers may choose to block, while others may not).

    So which is right? Is does a subsequent call to deactivate() raise
    AdapterInactive, or does it succeed, perhaps blocking until completion?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Mon, 18 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes and close issue

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

IDL and C++ relationship

  • Key: CORBA24-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2976
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    page 3-2 of the spec says (Section 3.1, para 3 and para 5):

    OMG IDL obeys the same lexical rules as C++.

    [ ... ]

    The OMG IDL grammar is a subset of the proposed ANSI C++ standard...

    Both paragraphs are simply wrong. IDL doesn't obey the same lexical rules
    and it isn't a subset of C++. In addition, we now have the final ISO/IEC
    C++ standard, so talking about the proposed or draft standard is out of date.

    I would suggest to systematically replace references to ANSI C++, the
    "proposed" standard, or the "draft" standard with the proper ISO/IEC
    reference.

    The verbage about IDL being a subset of C++ and obeying the same lexical
    rules should be removed. It simply isn't true.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 3 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

PIDL vs Local

  • Key: CORBA24-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2974
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Regarding using a version in a repository ID:

    If old PIDL were to be recast to local, each time the
    interface def would be enhanced (by adding new local
    operations), the IDL module would have to be appropriately
    versioned.

    I also point out that using a version for corba::object's repository
    id seems inappropriate, since there are multiple version of
    corba::object which the omg never bothered to version, since they
    did not have to.

    Thus, in summary, putting version 1.0 to correspond to a pidl interface
    implies stability in that inteface (i.e., it will not change without
    changing
    the version number), which the OMG has never enforced for PIDL.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Mon, 25 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed in interop/2000-01-01

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

CORBA 2.3 Editorial issue for TypeCodes & abstract_interface

  • Key: CORBA24-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2945
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    The comments in the definition of TypeCode in 10.7.1 shows that id() and
    name()
    are valid for TypeCodes of kind tk_abstract_interface, but the text
    descriptions of the id() and name() operations do not list abstract
    interface TypeCodes as supporting these operations.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 21 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Editorial issue for CORBA 2.3, 1.3.8.20

  • Key: CORBA24-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2944
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    Section 11.3.8.20 (servant_to_id) was not updated in the same fashion as
    section 11.3.8.21.

    There are two problems:

    1. The RETAIN policy in the first paragraph needs bold face.

    2. Behaviors 1 & 2 should both require the RETAIN policy, just like the
    text in section 11.3.8.21.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 20 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Component ids in 13.6.2.2

  • Key: CORBA24-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2913
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    Also, 13.6.2.2 claims "ORB services are assigned component identifiers
    in a namespace that is distinct from the the profile identifiers".
    What is the significance of this statement?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3 — Tue, 28 Sep 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed in interop/2000-01-01

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

Meaningless sentence on page 3-11?

  • Key: CORBA24-36
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2978
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    Page 3-11 says about string literals:

    The size of a string literal is the number of character literals
    enclosed by the quotes, after concatenation. The size of the
    literal is associated with the literal.

    The final sentence appears to be meaningless. Suggest to delete it.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 3 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Preprocessing of IDL

  • Key: CORBA24-35
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2977
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    Page 3-12:

    OMG IDL preprocessing, which is based on ANSI C++ preprocessing, ..
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    The highlighted phrase is meaningless and should be deleted.

    In addition, the last para of 3.3 says that

    A complete description of the preprocessing facilities may be found
    in the The Annotated C++ Reference Manual.

    For one, the ARM is badly out of date. Second, the para implies, but doesn't
    actually say, that IDL preprocessing is exactly like C++ preprocessing.

    I would suggest to replace the last para with a definitive statement to
    say that IDL is preprocessed as described for C++ in the ISO/IEC C++ standard.
    In addition, that statement should probably be used as the lead-in to
    section 3.3.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 3 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Type Code Section issue

  • Key: CORBA24-32
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2963
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Jishnu Mukerji [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    I was wondering why the TypCodes definition section is in Chapter 10, Interface
    Repository. Type Codes are used by lots of other things that have very little to
    do with Interface Repository. Wouldn't it be better to move the TypeCode section
    to Chapter 4.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 27 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Minor codes for Standard System Exceptions in Chapter 5 missing

  • Key: CORBA24-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2959
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Jishnu Mukerji [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    Chapter 5 (formal/99-07-09) is missing specification of minor codes for all the
    standard system exceptions that are specified to be raised under various
    circumstances.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 26 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

General Exception Question

  • Key: CORBA24-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2955
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Russell Butek)
  • Summary:

    Could someone explain to me the justification for all the restrictions on
    > exceptions? Why CAN'T we: pass exceptions as parameters, use them as
    > elements in container types? I know the IDL language doesn't allow it, I
    > just want to know why it was designed that way. Other languages certainly
    > allow it.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 26 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

CORBA 2.3 spec hasn't been updated with corrections in COM-CORBA Part B

  • Key: CORBA24-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2910
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    I notice that the CORBA 2.3 spec hasn't been updated with one of the corrections in
    part B of the COM-CORBA Interworking spec (orbos/97-09-06).

    page 13C-130 of the Part B spec, CORBA::Char mapping to UI1 has not been updated
    in the corresponding section in the CORBA 2.3 spec (19.3.1, page 19-10).

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Exception section issue

  • Key: CORBA24-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2954
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Jishnu Mukerji [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    I was wondering why the Standard Exception definitions are in Chapter 3 IDL
    Syntax and Semantics. Shouldn't they be better in Chapter 4 ORB Interfaces? I would like to get a feel for how the RTF membership feels about moving the
    entire section 3.21 from Chapter 3 to Chapter 4.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 14 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Minor codes for Standard System Exceptions in Chapter 8 missing

  • Key: CORBA24-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2960
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Jishnu Mukerji [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    Chapter 8 (formal/99-07-12) is missing specification of minor codes for all the
    standard system exceptions that are specified to be raised under various
    circumstances.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 26 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

RMI style repository ID hash code

  • Key: CORBA23-83
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2529
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: There is a problem with the currently defined algorithm for computing
    the hash code component of the RMI Hashed Format repository ID as
    defined in section 10.6.2. Because it is based only on the structural
    information in the most derived Java class and does not take into
    acoount any superclass information, it can give a "false positive"
    result when the state of a superclass changes but the state of the
    most derived class does not.

    This is a core RTF issue since the affected text is in chapter 10.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 12 Mar 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace the currently defined algorithm with one that fixes the problem as described below

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

forward declaration in ptc/98-10-04

  • Key: CORBA23-82
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2522
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Pages 3-18 and 3-19 of the CORBA 2.3a spec state that a forward declaration consists of the following:
    [abstract] "interface" <identifier>
    I believe that this should be:
    [abstract] "interface" <scoped_name>

    Otherwise, the following would be illegal:
    module A
    {
    interface B::d; //forward decl of d
    interface c

    { B::d f(); }

    ;
    };
    module B
    {
    interface d

    { A::c f(); }

    ;
    };

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 9 Mar 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change in 2.4

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

DynAny.insert_valuetype shoud be insert_val

  • Key: CORBA23-86
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2547
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The IDL in section 9.2 of ptc/98-12-04 is incorrect. The OBV RTF adopted
    method names insert_val and get_val instead of the original insert_value
    and get_value which conflicted with the get_value method in the DynFixed
    subclass. The IDL incorectly shows these methods as insert_valuetype
    and get_valuetype.

    Proposed Resolution:

    Change insert_valuetype to insert_val and get_valuetype to get_val.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 16 Mar 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    fix the names in section 9.2

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

confusing rules for operations on Object

  • Key: CORBA23-85
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2543
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 4.3 of ptc/98-10-05 documents Object Reference Operations. These
    are described as "not operations in the normal sense, in that they are
    implemented directly by the ORB, not passed on to the object
    implementation".

    This includes a variety of operations, requiring varying contexts to be
    used successfully:

    • Some require remote communication to the orb of the server
      or (contrary to the quote above) may actually be passed on
      to the object implementation, or something similar like a
      servant manager (e.g. is_a, non_existent)
    • some may require remote communication to an interface repository
      (e.g. get_interface)
    • some require the local orb to be operational
      (e.g. create_request)
    • some can function even without a local orb
      (e.g. is_nil, duplicate, release)
  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 16 Mar 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Incorrect IDL is section 5.5.3

  • Key: CORBA23-84
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2539
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The IDL in section 5.5.3 is incorrect. It refers to
    CORBA::FullValueDescription
    but the correct name for this type according to chapter 10 is
    CORBA::ValueDef::FullValueDescription

    Proposed Resolution:

    Change chapter 5 to match up with chapter 10.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 15 Mar 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    make it so.

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

LocateReply body alignment issue

  • Key: CORBA23-81
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2521
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Hi folks, I know this is a bit late but I was going through some GIOP
    1.2 issues with Bob and I only just noticed another required
    clarification for LocateReply messages. Bascially the text added under
    Request/Reply which states "In GIOP 1.2, the Request[/Reply] Body is
    always aligned on an 8 octet boundary" was not also added to the
    description for LocateReply"s (15.4.2.2). I presume the requirement
    was intended for the body data of all message types. If so, perhaps it
    would make sense to move this text to the start of 15.4 and reworded
    to indicate the requirement for all message body data in general.

    If the LocateReply body alignment issue will not be clarified in the
    GIOP 1.2 specification then I wish to submit this as a new interop
    issue.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 8 Mar 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed in interop/2000-01-01

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

POA issue, section 11.3.8.10

  • Key: CORBA23-80
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2513
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 11.3.8.10 of the Core draft 2.3a says that the application is
    free to assign its own servant manager to the root POA, but the next
    section says that the
    set_servant_manager() operation requires that the POA in question must
    support the request processing policy of USE_SERVANT_MANAGER. But as
    the root
    POA has a req. proc. policy of USE_ACTIVE_OBJECT_MAP_ONLY, surely the
    user CANNOT assign a servant manager to the root POA.

    The text is a mistake, isn"t it? The application cannot "assign its own
    servant manager to the root POA". Unless there is some subtlety to the
    meaning of the word "assign" which make it different from "set". I
    thought the root POA was something the user could not tamper with in any
    way.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 5 Mar 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

sharing valuetypes across Anys

  • Key: CORBA23-93
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2577
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Should valuetype identity be preserved across arguments when those
    valuetypes reside within Anys?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 5 Apr 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UNIQUE_ID and ServantActivator issue

  • Key: CORBA23-92
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2576
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: What should happen if the servant returned from a
    ServantActivator::incarnate call is already registered for another
    object id, and the POA has the UNIQUE_ID policy?

    Since this is clearly an error, I suggest raising the OBJ_ADAPTER
    exception (which will be returned to the client whose request prompted
    the call to incarnate). I also suggest requiring the POA to call
    ServantActivator::etherealize for that object id. The latter is
    necessary to allow the application to dispose of any resources
    associated with that object, and to ensure that an application will
    never recieve two calls to ServantActivator::incarnate for a particular
    object id without an intervening call to ServantActivator::etherealize.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 2 Apr 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate change and close issue

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

New "opaque" data type

  • Key: CORBA23-95
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2674
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: I propose the addition of the new basic data type "opaque."

    Many applications require the sending or retrieving of opaque data,
    like graphical data or file contents. Currently, such data is packaged
    as sequence<octet>.
    In the past, the performance of passing sequence<octet> parameters
    was not satisfactory because of the generic mapping of sequences. In
    the recent C++ mapping, the dubious get_buffer() is introduced for
    the mapping of sequences.
    I feel that this matter is best resolved by adding a new data type
    which can then be mapped efficiently into target languages without
    the side effect of complicating the mapping of other sequences.
    After all, a "string," too, is nothing but a sequence of char.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Sun, 30 May 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

DynAny::equal operator issue

  • Key: CORBA23-94
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2616
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The DynAny::equal operator does not mention how to compare object
    references or TypeCodes. It should be specified to require is_equivalent()
    to be called for object reference comparison and equivalent() to be called
    for TypeCode comparison.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 20 Apr 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

ORB::shutdown again

  • Key: CORBA23-89
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2553
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: I"m sorry to reopen this can of worms, but I believe that the shutdown()
    issue we voted on (1665) still only offers a partial solution. The problem
    appears to be that terminating the event loop and ORB destruction must be
    separate steps.

    Consider a very simple application that uses RETAIN, NO_IMPLICIT_ACTIVATION,
    and USER_ID. No servant manager is used.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 23 Mar 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue should be closed no change.

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

activate_object_with_id and exceptions

  • Key: CORBA23-88
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2549
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: If I use activate_object_with_id and the object ID is already in the AOM,
    the operation raises ObjectAlreadyActive.

    If I use activate_object_with_id and the servant is already in the AOM, and
    the POA has UNIQUE_ID, the operation raises ServantAlreadyActive.

    What happens if I have UNIQUE_ID, and I run the following code?

    poa->activate_object_with_id(my_id, my_servant);
    poa->activate_object_with_id(my_id, my_servant); // ???

    Which exception is raised on the second call, ObjectAlreadyActive or
    ServantAlreadyActive?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 18 Mar 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Repository ID for Object

  • Key: CORBA23-87
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2548
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Latest 2.3, draft (98-10-10), page 13-17:

    "A Null TypeID is the only mechanism that can be used to represent
    the type CORBA::Object."

    I am aware of more than one ORB that uses "IDL:omg.org/CORBA/Object:1.0".

    I don"t understand why:

    • a null ID should mean Object
    • why a perfectly good repository ID for Object should be disallowed

    Related to this is the fact that we made repository IDs mandatory in
    reference TypeCodes with the 2.3 revision. Unless an implementation is
    very careful, this could mean that, if it gets a reference that doesn"t
    have the repository ID, it could present an illegal TypeCode (with an
    empty ID) for that reference to the application.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 17 Mar 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed in interop/2000-01-01

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

Clarification on IdUniquenessPolicy

  • Key: CORBA23-91
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2574
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The description of IdUniquenessPolicy in section 11.3.7.3 fails to
    mention how this policy interacts with the ServantRetentionPolicy.

    My interpretation is that the IdUniquenessPolicy is irrelevant when the
    ServantRetentionPolicy is NON_RETAIN. If this is the case it should be
    explicitly stated. Alternatively, one specific value might be required
    when NON_RETAIN is in effect. (If so, it ought to be MULTIPLE_ID.)

    Without some statement clarifying this there could be portability
    problems with some orbs allowing either value while others require a
    particular value.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 31 Mar 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

deactivate_object asymmetry

  • Key: CORBA23-90
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2559
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In the POA, we have

    ObjectId activate_object(in Servant s) raises(...);
    void activate_object_with_id(in ObjectId id, in Servant s) raises(...);

    However, for deactivation, we have only one function:

    void deactivate_object(in ObjectId id) raises(...);

    This lacks symmetry. If I can use implicit activation of a servant,
    why can"t I use implicit deactivation? For symmetry, I would have expected:

    void deactivate_object() raises(...);
    void deactivate_object_with_id(in ObjectId id) raises(...);

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 29 Mar 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Core uses both "standard" and "system" exception terminology

  • Key: CORBA23-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2221
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The core chapters (chapter 3, for example) uses both "standard" and
    "system" to describe the same class of exceptions. Most of the core
    seems to prefer "standard", however the C++ language mapping uses
    SystemException.

    The core should be cleaned up to use "standard" as the normal term, and
    then state that "system" is used in some language mappings as a synonym.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 19 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

create_policy specification needs to be completed

  • Key: CORBA23-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2214
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The specification of the create_policy operation in Chapter 4 section
    4.9.2 (ptc-98-10-05, 5 November 98) is missing the following important
    elements:

    1. There is no specification of what is expected of someone who is
    defining a new policy type, in order to use this operation as the
    factory for policy objects of that type.

    2. Policy objects of wich of the PolicyTypes can be created using this
    operation in release 2.3 is not specified. Consequently, the types that
    are valid as input through the "val" parameter are unspecified also.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 16 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes in 2.4 and close issue

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

Need namespace for Policy Type

  • Key: CORBA23-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2206
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: To allow vendors to define their own value added Policies, the
    PolicyType should be partitioned into spaced that can be assigned to
    vendors. Since the PolicyType is a CORBA long, just like the system
    exception minor code, we can just reuse the VMCID for this purpose.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 11 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

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

Codebases with multiple URLs

  • Key: CORBA23-40
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2316
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: To support JDK 1.2 correctly, the codebase support for Objects By Value
    needs to support multiple URLs rather than a single URL as at present.

    This affects page 5-16 in the core 2.3a chapters. Either the signatures
    of the implementation and implementations methods need to change to:
    URLSeq implementation(in CORBA::RepositoryId x);
    URLSeqSeq implementations(in CORBA::RepositoryIdSeq x);

    or we need to say that the URL string can be a blank-separated
    sequence of URLs. This also affects the OBV grammar on page 15-19.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes in 2.4 and close issue

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

Supporting multiple abstract interfaces

  • Key: CORBA23-39
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2314
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Valuetypes should be able to support multiple abstract interfaces but
    only a single regular interface. See also comments number 28 and 31
    in the list of core 2.3a errata I just sent out.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes in 2.4 and close issue.

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

uses of recursive_tc

  • Key: CORBA23-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2235
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: According to ptc/98-10-08, 16 Oct. 98 [REVIEW], p. 10-53,
    "Once the recursive TypeCode has been properly embedded in the
    enclosing TypeCode which corresponds to the specified repository
    id, it will function as a normal TypeCode."

    Given the following idl:

    valuetype v

    { public v m0; }

    ;

    And the following C++ code to generate the typecode for v:

    CORBA::ORB_ptr orb = ...;
    CORBA::TypeCode_ptr tcRecursive =
    orb->create_recursive_tc("IDL:v:1.0");
    CORBA::ValueMemberSeq v_seq;
    v_seq.length(1);
    v_seq[0].type = tcRecursive;
    ...
    CORBA::TypeCode_ptr tcV = orb->create_value_tc("IDL:v:1.0", "v",
    VM_NONE, CORBA::TypeCode::_nil(),
    v_seq);

    After tcRecursive has been properly embedded, what does "tcRecursive
    functioning
    like a normal TypeCode" mean? Does it mean that one can call on
    tcRecursive the same
    methods that are available on tcV? For example, will

    CORBA::Visibility vis = tcRecursive->member_visibility(0);

    work?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 3 Dec 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change in 2.4

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

is_a underspecified

  • Key: CORBA23-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2230
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: the description of is_a suffers from the same problem that we fixed for
    non_existent in 2.3: it is not clear what the operation should do if
    it could not make a determination due to a hard error. This means that
    the application does not know whether failure to make a determination
    returns false, or whether that will raise an exception (and false is
    returned only if the object doesn"t have the expected type).

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 1 Dec 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    clarify

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

Local operations on CORBA::Object

  • Key: CORBA23-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2223
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Basically, people get confused about which operations on CORBA::Object
    can go remote. It"s clear from the GIOP spec that only non_existent(),
    is_a(), get_interface(), and get_domain_managers() can go on the wire.
    It follows that things like nil(), hash(), and is_equivalent() must be
    local. However, as Owen Rees pointed out, this only applies to GIOP, not
    the core, but a compliant ORB need not provide GIOP.

    It seems that it would be a good idea to add some clarification to the core
    to state which operations on CORBA::Object must be local and which ones
    may (but need not) go remote.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 19 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes in 2.4 and close issue

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

Clarify meaning of no IDL initializers

  • Key: CORBA23-42
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2319
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 3.8.1.5 on page 24 does not make it clear what it means to
    have no initializers for an IDL valuetype. The decision of the OBV
    designers, which is reflected in the C++ and Java language mappings,
    was that this means there is no portable way to create an instance
    of the value type. This should be clearly stated in the definition of
    IDL semantics for valuetypes, not deduced from the language mappings.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix it

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

Misleading text in section 3.2.5.2

  • Key: CORBA23-41
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2318
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The second last paragraph in section 3.2.5.2 is confusing. The
    second last sentence says (modulo typos) that since a string is a
    sequence of character literals, a sequence of \u literals can be
    used to define a wide string literal.

    This seems to me to be a non sequitur. The conclusion does not
    follow from the premise. I think this sentence was supposed to say
    that since a wide string is a sequence of wide character literals,
    a sequence of \u literals can be used to define a wide string literal.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix it

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

Names of Data*Stream methods

  • Key: CORBA23-38
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2312
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The method names in DataInputStream and DataOutputStream have been
    chosen to match the method names in the Java portability streams.
    There is a proposal before the Java RTF to change some of the latter
    names. If this is accepted, we should change the corresponding names
    in Data*Stream as well.

    This affects page 5-12 in the core 2.3a chapters. write_Value should
    change to write_value and write_Abstract to write_abstract_interface.
    The corresponding read_* methods on page 5-14 should also be changed.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Custom Marshaling clarification

  • Key: CORBA23-37
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2311
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In the core 2.3a chapters, page 5-11, section 5.5.1, last paragraph needs
    to be clarified or deleted. This paragraph originally referred to the
    "streaming policy" registration APIs that used to be specified here but
    have since been deleted.

    Do we still intend to allow language mappings to provide alternative
    mechanisms for custom marshaling as well as the standard mechanism of
    having the valuetype implementation provide the CustomMarshal methods
    marshal and unmarshal? If not, this paragraph should be deleted. If so,
    the last part of the paragraph should be reworded, for example "... to
    support other ways for value types to implement custom marshaling".

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate change in 2.4 and close issue

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

Missing minor code

  • Key: CORBA23-36
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2310
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In the 2.3a core chapters, there is a minor code missing from page 3-58,
    table 3-13. BAD_PARAM minor code 1 should also be raised for errors
    trying to lookup and unregister a value factory. Alternatively we could
    add new minor codes for these.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Let minor code one be used for all value factory related exceptions.

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

POA SINGLE_THREAD_MODEL description ambiguous

  • Key: CORBA23-35
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2308
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The description for the SINGLE_THREAD_MODEL policy only states that the
    POA makes all upcalls in a manner that is safe for code that is
    multi-thread-unaware. This statement could be read to disallow
    recursive upcalls from one object implementation to another mediated by
    the same POA on a single thread.

    Proposed resolution:

    Add the following sentence to both sections 9.2.8 and 9.3.7, where the
    text defines the Single Threaded Model:

    A single-threaded POA will still allow recursive upcalls, where an
    object"s implementation invokes an operation on an object implemented
    using the same POA.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 18 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Custom marshalling & AbstractBase

  • Key: CORBA23-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2296
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The 2.3a draft defines DataOutputStream as having the following
    operation (see p. 5-12):

    void write_Abstract(in AbstractBase value);

    Yet there is no definition of the type `AbstractBase" anywhere
    in the document.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 7 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add AbstractBase as a native type in the CORBA module, together with explanation in Chapter 6.

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

Sequences of recursive structs/unions

  • Key: CORBA23-32
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2275
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: If I have a recursive struct or union type and want to pass a sequence
    of that type to an operation, I am completely stuck if I want to do
    this with C++. I"m not sure about other mappings, but I expect that
    Java, Ada, etc. will all suffer from the same problem.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 21 Dec 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

POA threading policies

  • Key: CORBA23-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2303
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The POA offers the SINGLE_THREAD_MODEL policy. It guarantees that, for
    a POA with this policy, all invocations are serialized. (The only other
    threading policy, ORB_CTRL_MODEL, allows to ORB to thread invocations as
    it sees fit.)

    There is a pragmatic problem here: SINGLE_THREAD_MODEL guarantees
    serialization for only a particular POA. This means that if I have a server
    that uses three POAs, all of which use SINGLE_THREAD_MODEL, invocations on
    any one of these POAs are serialized but invocations on different POAs
    can be dispatched in parallel.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Sun, 10 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Signature of unmarshal method is wrong

  • Key: CORBA23-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2320
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: On page 5-11, section 5.5.1, the signature of the unmarshal method is
    wrong. It should return void, not ValueBase.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix it

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

valuebox and DynAny

  • Key: CORBA24-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3135
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Progress Software ( Steve Vinoski)
  • Summary:

    The DynAny chapter says absolutely nothing about value boxes. Do they
    fulfill only the base DynAny interface, or the DynValue interface, or do we
    need a new DynValueBox interface? If the DynValue interface is supposed to
    be used, do you treat the boxed value as a single member? If so, what is
    its name?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 17 Dec 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Following text changes address the outage raised in this issue as well as the one from issue 3250

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

OMG wchar <-> COM WCHAR in CORBA 2.3

  • Key: CORBA24-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3134
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: IONA ( Thomas Moriarty)
  • Summary:

    The CORBA 2.3 spec states in table 18-2 that OMG IDL wstring maps to LPWSTR
    in COM.

    This was presumably added with the introduction of CORBA support for
    wstrings. I don't see any mapping defined for OMG wchar. This would
    naturally map to COM WCHAR.

    Is this an error/omission in the 2.3 spec?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 17 Dec 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    OMG IDL wchar should indeed map to COM WCHAR. Add it to table 18-1

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

What is the TypeCode for ValueBase?

  • Key: CORBA24-54
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3132
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    I know this is late, but I think it is quite urgent, and we ought to
    add it to the last Core 2000 vote.]

    The spec is silent about the existence and properties of a TypeCode
    constant for ValueBase, even though it is necessary to define one so
    that the DII, DSI and IFR can operate properly.

    There also is no explicit information about what values operation calls
    on the TC_Object typecode constant return.

    Proposal:

    1. Add to the list of TypeCode constants in 10.7.2:

    TC_ValueBase = tk_value

    { ValueBase }

    2. Add at the end of section 10.7.2:

    For the TC_Object TypeCode constant, calling id returns
    "IDL:omg.org/CORBA/Object:1.0" and calling name returns "Object". For
    the TC_ValueBase TypeCode constant, calling id returns
    "IDL:omg.org/CORBA/ValueBase:1.0", calling name returns "ValueBase",
    calling member_count returns 0, calling type_modifier returns
    CORBA::VM_NONE, and calling concrete_base_type returns a nil TypeCode.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 17 Dec 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Yes, this is a signficant outage. It should be fixed and the fix should be incorporated in 2.3 via t

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

Non-standard system exceptions

  • Key: CORBA24-50
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3104
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: hursley.ibm.com ( Simon Nash)
  • Summary:

    Section 3.17.1 says that "ORB implementations may raise non-standard system
    exceptions." This raises a number of questions:

    1. How are non-standard system exceptions defined? Are they defined using
    IDL, or are they PIDL? If they are IDL, how are they identified as
    system exceptions by the language mappings?

    2. The definitions in section 3.17.1 for standard system exceptions appear
    to be IDL, but I believe the intention is that they are PIDL. This
    should be stated clearly.

    3. Should non-standard system exceptions be defined in the CORBA module like
    the standard system exceptions? There are three choices:
    a. They must be in the CORBA module.
    b. They must not be in the CORBA nmodule.
    c. They can either be in the CORBA nodule or in other modules.

    4. Point 3 raises the more general question of whether it is legal for ORB
    vendors to add non-standard definitions to the CORBA module. Section 3.14
    says that "Names defined by the CORBA specification are in a module named
    CORBA," but it does not say whether these are the only names that may appear
    in the module named CORBA. This should be clarified.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 10 Dec 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    See text below for resolution

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

Use of Principal in GIOP Module erroneous

  • 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
    // GIOP 1.0
    struct RequestHeader_1_0

    { // Renamed from RequestHeader IOP::ServiceContextList service_context; unsigned long request_id; boolean response_expected; sequence <octet> object_key; string operation; Principal requesting_principal; ^^^^^^^^^ }

    ;

    // GIOP 1.1
    struct RequestHeader_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; ^^^^^^^^^ }

    ;

    ...
    };

    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

create_POA and inactive state?

  • Key: CORBA24-48
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3073
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    what should happen if I call create_POA() on a POA whose POA manager is
    in the inactive state (that is, a POA on which, previously, deactivate()
    was called?

    The spec says nothing about this. Seeing that creating a new POA on a "dead"
    POA doesn't make sense, I would suggest to raise BAD_INV_ORDER, possibly
    with a new minor code.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 2 Dec 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

value type substitutability

  • Key: CORBA24-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3072
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: UBS ( Hans Kneubuehl)
  • Summary:

    Chapter 5.2.5: Value type semantics should not define that an instance of a
    value type can be passed (directly) as a parameter that is declared as an
    interface type. The reason is that this is not true in some of the language
    mappings (e.g. C++) because it contradicts the kind and nature of value types.

    A value type instance IS NOT an object reference even if it is registered with
    the ORB. Therefore, if a construct conceptually is not a subtype of another
    construct, it should not be possible that it substitutes the other. Also, it
    should not be required that there are any shortcuts which automatically convert
    a registered valuetype to it's associated object reference.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify the ambiguity that leads to the possible inappropriate interpretation

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

OMG IDL Syntax and Semantics issue

  • Key: CORBA24-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3069
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The following thing is unnoticed in CORBA V2.3, June 1999, OMG document
    99-07-07.pdf, Chapter 3, "OMG IDL Syntax and Semantics", pages 3-37..3-39,
    definition of "sequence" type:

    There is no explicit definition what length sequence may have at run
    time. Things are perfectly defined for sequence bounds (i.e. maximum
    size at compile time) which is explicitly declared to be a positive
    integer. However, nothing is said whether length of sequence at run
    time can be: (a) positive; or (b) non-negative; or even (c) negative.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

TypeCode issue

  • Key: CORBA24-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3048
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ZeroC ( Marc Laukien)
  • Summary:

    At present, the following IDL code is illegal:

    interface I

    { CORBA::TypeCode get_type(); }

    ;

    To make it legal, "orb.idl" must be included. From the spec:

    "The file orb.idl contains the IDL definitions for the CORBA module. The
    file orb.idl must be included in IDL files that use names defined in the
    CORBA module."

    I don't think that this is a good idea, because of the following
    reasons:

    • TypeCode is PIDL, not IDL. So orb.idl can only be used as a "switch"
      to enable TypeCode, but it cannot contain a "real" IDL definition for
      TypeCode.
    • Having to include orb.idl for every little program that requires
      TypeCode means a huge overhead, as orb.idl includes everything from
      the CORBA module (including the IFR!).

    I don't see any reason why TypeCode should only be available if orb.idl
    is included. To me, TypeCode is "built-in", even if it doesn't have a
    keyword. So it appears rather strange to me that I have to artificially
    disable TypeCode in our IDL parser if orb.idl is not included, just to
    be compliant with the spec.

    I would therefore propose to allow CORBA::TypeCode in IDL even if
    orb.idl is not included.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 23 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Problem with the "Special scoping" rules in 3.15.3

  • Key: CORBA24-37
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2980
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    The special scoping rules make it clear that they apply only to
    identifiers that name a type, however the second IDL example claims that
    the import of a constant definition (in this case the identifier I) into
    an interface scope behaves the same way.

    So which one is it? Do the rules only apply to type identifiers or to
    all identifiers?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Mon, 8 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    The changes below provide clarification.

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

Editorial glitch in DynAny::destroy, section 9.2.3.6

  • Key: CORBA24-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3041
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    The first paragraph of 9.2.3.6 refers to "creation operations on the ORB
    interface". This needs to be changed to "creation operations on the
    DynAnyFactory interface".

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 16 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

What is the NO_RESPONSE exception good for?

  • Key: CORBA24-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3022
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    Section 3.17.1.15 states:

    "NO_RESPONSE

    This exception is raised if a client attempts to retrieve the result of
    a deferred synchronous call, but the response for the request is not yet
    available."

    Meanwhile, section 7.3.4 states:

    "get_response returns the result of a request. If get_response is called
    before the request has completed, it blocks until the request has
    completed."

    So if get_response blocks, how and when will and ORB ever raise
    NO_RESPONSE?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 12 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section 7.6: IDL context housecleaning

  • Key: CORBA24-42
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3021
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    Now that we've bitten the bullet and moved the Exception section from
    chapter 3 to chapter 4, shouldn't we do the same thing with section 7.6,
    since IDL contexts actually have little to do with the DII?

    I propose that we move section 7.6 to chapter 4 as well.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 12 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Question about IDL \uxxxx escape format

  • Key: CORBA24-41
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3020
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    Why was the \uxxxx escape from C++ added to wide string & char literals
    in IDL, but the equivalent \Uxxxxxxxx escape was not?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 11 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate

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

Bug in 11.3.7.6

  • Key: CORBA24-58
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3172
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    on page 11-30, we have:

    RETAIN and USE_ACTIVE_OBJECT_MAP_ONLY

    This combination represents the situation where the POA does no
    automatic object activation (that is, the POA searches only the
    Active Object Map). The server must activate all objects served
    by the POA explicitly, using either the activate_object or
    activate_object_with_id operation.

    The final sentence is wrong. Implicit activation is controlled by the
    ImplicitActivation policy.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Sun, 2 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove the incorrect sentence

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

null & void TCs and DynAny

  • Key: CORBA24-57
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3159
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Progress Software ( Steve Vinoski)
  • Summary:

    The DynAny chapter says nothing about whether
    DynAnyFactory::create_dyn_any_from_type_code is supposed to correctly
    handle a TypeCode argument that has a TCKind of either tk_null or tk_void.

    I assume these are valid argument TypeCodes that do not result in an
    InconsistentTypeCode exception, and the returned DynAny is simply one that
    fulfills the basic DynAny interface and has no components. However, it
    would be nice to explicitly document the cases for these two TypeCodes,
    though, given that they're a little different from other TypeCodes in that
    they can't have any associated values.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 21 Dec 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify with additional text as shown below

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

Do valueboxes have factories?

  • Key: CORBA24-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3115
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    Nowhere in the CORBA 2.3 specification is it made clear whether or not
    valueboxes have or need a valuefactory.

    Since valueboxes are clearly completely concrete types, with no
    operations, and with no factory initializers, there is no need for a
    factory for valueboxes.

    Proposal:

    Add the following to secion 5.2.8.1:

    "Value box types do not need or use factories."

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 14 Dec 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

DynAny & abstract interfaces don't mix!

  • Key: CORBA24-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3109
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    Section 9.2.2 states:

    "The operation raises InconsistentTypeCode if value has a TypeCode with
    a TCKind of tk_Principal, tk_native, or tk_abstract_interface."

    This is totally broken for abstract interfaces. What happens if I do
    this:

    // IDL
    abstract interface I {
    };

    struct S

    { I an_i; }

    ;

    // C++
    S mys;
    CORBA::Any a;

    a <<= s;

    DynamicAny::DynAnyFactory_var daf = ...;
    DynamicAny::DynAny_var da = daf->create_dyn_any(a);
    DynamicAny::DynAny_var component = da->current_component();

    Obviously the value of component must be meaningful, otherwise there is
    no way to examine or construct a value of type S.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 10 Dec 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Errors in published IDL for CORBA module

  • Key: CORBA24-51
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3105
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    I found a lot of errors in the CORBA IDL text file that's on the server
    for download:
    In general, the layout of the file is a mess. Inconsistent, meaningless
    indentation, whitespace before semicolons on occasion, comments indented
    poorly, etc, etc. Wouldn't hurt to clean this up – it's quite embarrassing
    as it is now.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Fri, 10 Dec 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Missing "abstract" in forward declaration

  • Key: CORBA24-40
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3018
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Perot Systems ( Bill Binko)
  • Summary:

    In the new Core 2.3.1 (http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/99-10-07),
    section 3.7.4 is incorrect in that it does not mention the optional
    "abstract" keyword.

    A forward declaration declares the name of an interface without defining it.
    This
    permits the definition of interfaces that refer to each other. The syntax
    consists simply

    of the keyword interface followed by an <identifier> that names the
    interface. The
    actual definition must follow later in the specification.

    The paragraph is not in sync with the idl grammar in section 3.4

    (6) <forward_dcl> ::= [ "abstract" ] "interface" <identifier>

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Wed, 10 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

The algorithm for TypeCode::equivalent in 10.7.1 was not updated

  • Key: CORBA24-39
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3001
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    The algorithm for TypeCode::equivalent in 10.7.1 was not updated to
    reflect the new TypeCode::member_visibility, TypeCode::type_modifier,
    and TypeCode::concrete_base_type operations.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 4 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Codeset conversions and unions

  • Key: CORBA24-38
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3000
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    Recently, we decided not to permit wchar as the discrinator type for
    unions because of the impossibility of dealing with different codesets.

    Well, it looks like we have exactly the same problem for char

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 4 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

IR Changes in 2.3

  • Key: CORBA23-69
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2450
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Jishnu has pointed out (very pointedly i might add that a whole slew of
    upwardly incompatible changes have been made to the IR.

    E.g. old structs that have been modified (e.g. full interface description),
    new structs have been added, operations added to container, changed
    tckind, etc., etc.

    The question before us is how, if at all, to reflect this change.

    We came up with several options (listed in no particular order and
    with no particular recommendation.)

    1. Do nothing. This is the traditional approach but probably becoming
    less and less appropriate as we mature

    2. Add a #pragma version name_of versioned_thingy major.minor
    for every definition. (Jishnu thinks that in
    principle all the #pragma version statements could go in one place,
    say at the end of the CORBA module. [We leave it as exercise to the
    reader to work out why they have to go at the end] )

    3. Change the name of the enclosing module. say CORBA -> CORBA_2_3, gulp!!

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 12 Feb 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    incorporate changes in 2.4 and close issue.

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

What value type does ValueDef"s base_value() return?

  • Key: CORBA23-68
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2447
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: full_desc: What does a ValueDef"s base_value() operation
    return for a value type that does not inherit from
    any concrete value?

    I see two possible resolutions: (1) make base_value()
    return ValueDef::_nil() in this case, or (2) add a
    pk_ValueBase primitive type to PrimitiveDef and
    return that.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 9 Feb 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Interceptors broken

  • Key: CORBA23-63
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2435
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: There seems to be general consensus that the interceptor spec is
    unimplementable fantasy material. Given this, it would seem advisable to
    remove interceptors from the core.

    Also, there is some doubt as to whether P&P rules were followed when
    interceptors were added. My understanding is that an RTF cannot add
    new features to a spec, yet interceptors definitely seem to fall into
    that category.

    Given that no RFP was ever issues and that the feature is obviously broken,
    I suggest to remove the interceptor section until the outcome of the
    Portable Interceptors RFP can be added.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 4 Feb 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close in 2.4 with no change.

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

clarification and bug in InterfaceDef::FullInterfaceDescription

  • Key: CORBA23-62
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2432
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The text in the interface repository specification that describes FullInterfaceDescription is ambiguous. CORBA v2.3a draft, section 10.5.23.1, page 10-22 reads:

    The describe_interface operation returns a FullInterfaceDescription
    describing the interface, including its operations and attributes. The
    inherited describe operation for an InterfaceDef returns an
    InterfaceDescription.

    It does not specify whether the elements of the FullInterfaceDescription should describe only items (e.g., operations, attributes) that where defined in the interface being described, or whether they should describe items inherited from base interfaces as well. My naive, assumed rationale is that the full description is intended to improve efficiency. It should allow a dynamic client to obtain all of the information it needs to invoke any operation supported by the interface in a single request, avoiding the need to traverse the graph of base interfaces. If this is the case, then the full description should include inherited items as well, and the spec should say so. I checked our implementation (VisiBroker) and this is what it does.

    My suggested remedy is to add the following words to the paragraph cited above:

    "The operations and attributes fields of the FullInterfaceDescription structure include descriptions of all of the operations and attributes in the transitive closure of the inheritance graph of the interface being described."

    The bug (I think) is that the FullInterfaceDescription description doesn"t include the boolean is_abstract member. The abbreviated InterfaceDescription struct has been extended with this member, and the FullInterfaceDescription should be a superset of the InterfaceDescription.

    The suggested fix is to add the the following member to the InterfaceDef::FullInterfaceDescription struct:

    boolean is_abstract;

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 2 Feb 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes in 2.4 and close issue

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

omg.org prefix not well specified

  • Key: CORBA23-77
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2508
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The core spec says in section 10.6.7 that:

    Unless pragma directives establishing RepositoryIds for all definitions
    are present in an IDL definition officially published by the OMG, the
    following directive is implicitly present at file scope preceding all
    such definitions:
    #pragma prefix “omg.org”

    What does an IDL compiler need to do to be compliant with this? How
    is it supposed to recognize IDL definitions officially published by the
    OMG so that it can insert the required implicit pragma?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 3 Mar 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate change in 2.4 and close issue

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

Scope of SendingContextRunTime service context

  • Key: CORBA23-76
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2507
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: It is not clear what is the scope of the SendingContextRunTime service
    context defined in section 13.6.7.

    Since the content of this service context will remain constant through
    the lifetime of a connection, it needs to be sent only once per
    connection. This is much more efficient than requiring it to be sent
    on a per-request basis.

    This seems to parallel the current usage of the CodeSets service context.
    Section 13.7.2.6 says:
    Code set negotiation is not performed on a per-request basis, but only
    when a client initially connects to a server. All text data communicated
    on a connection are encoded as defined by the TCSs selected when the
    connection is established.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 3 Mar 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed in interop/2000-01-01

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

CORBA::Object::ping ?

  • Key: CORBA23-71
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2456
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: I"d like to float the idea of adding a ping operation to CORBA::Object:

    module CORBA {
    interface Object

    { void ping(); // ... }

    ;
    // ...
    };

    The reason for suggesting this is that developers have a frequent need
    for this functionality. (How to determine object reachability (as opposed
    to object existence) is a FAQ).

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Inconsistent spellings of "policy" related identifiers:

  • Key: CORBA23-70
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2454
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: I have found inconsistent spellings of "policy" related identifiers:

    "DomainManagersList" is used on pages 4-4 and 4-8

    "DomainManagerList" is used on pages 4-17,20-87,20-88,20-110

    Also, the operation identifer

    "set_policy_override" is used on pages 20-87, 20-88, 20-110

    However, this same operation identifier is consistently spelled as

    "set_policy_overrides" on pages 15-52,15-61,15-65,15-66,15-103,
    15-104,15-105,15-106,15-108,15-109,15-111,15-199,15-218,
    and 15-219

    in 98-12-03.pdf (Security Service Specification - Security Service
    v1.5 15 December 1998 [FINAL]

    So what is the "correct" spelling of these identifiers?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 17 Feb 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change in 2.4

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

What use is CORBA::exception_type?

  • Key: CORBA23-73
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2490
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: This enumeration type is defined in 3.17.1, but used no where else. Why
    is it even there?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 25 Feb 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    incorporate changes in 2.4 and close issue.

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

Inconsistent Definition of Flags type

  • Key: CORBA23-72
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2487
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In Section 4.3 of V2.3a specification, the typedef of Flags is "long". In
    Section 7.1.1, it is "unsigned long".

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 24 Feb 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Make it uniformly unsigned long

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

POA that has IdAssignmentPolicy=SYSTEM--portability problem

  • Key: CORBA23-79
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2511
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: For a POA that has IdAssignmentPolicy=SYSTEM, there is a portability
    problem in the combination of the POA generation of an ObjectId and
    the language functions that convert between ObjectId and string.

    The C++ functions PortableServer::ObjectId_to_string (and wstring)
    state that

    If conversion of an ObjectId to a string would
    result in illegal characters in the string (such
    as a NUL), the [...] functions throw the
    CORBA::BAD_PARAM exception.

    This apparently assumes that the conversion does nothing but take the
    sequence of octet and recast it as a char*. Thus, an embedded null
    would cause the string to be interpreted as shorter than the sequence,
    so it"s an error.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 4 Mar 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change in 2.4

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

Can an any with a tk_null or tk_void TypeCode be encoded with CDR?

  • Key: CORBA23-78
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2509
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The spec is silent about whether an any with a TypeCode of tk_null or
    tk_void can be marshalled and unmarshalled with CDR.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 3 Mar 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed in interop/2000-01-01

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

Need to specify exception for abstract interface error

  • Key: CORBA23-75
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2502
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: An abstract interface type in an operation signature indicates that
    at runtime the value passed will either be an object reference or a
    valuetype. However, it is possible for user code invoking this
    operation to supply (incorrectly) a runtime programming language object
    that is neither of these. For example, an IDL abstract interface type
    maps into a Java interface, and the object passed at runtime could be
    any Java type that implements this interface.

    The spec does not currently define an exception to be used in this
    error case. The Java to IDL mapping needs a defined exception so that
    it can detect this error and return a NotSerializableException to the
    application.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 3 Mar 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add a new minor code to the BAD_PARAM system exception:

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

Error in IRObject definition in 98-12-04

  • Key: CORBA23-74
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2492
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The definition of IRObject in 10.5.2 somehow got an additional attribute
    that makes no sense: "readonly attribute InterfaceName type_name".
    This is probably an editorial mistake.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 26 Feb 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    They have been fixed in ptc/98-12-04.

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

POA Construction Policy.

  • Key: CORBA23-65
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2442
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: >From what I understand of the POA document is that
    the POA or POAs are process resident, and that the servants they register
    are within their own process space, i.e. the Server.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 5 Feb 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

another problem with IDL specification section 3.9.2

  • Key: CORBA23-64
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2436
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The spec doesn"t say how octal and hex integral constants are treated.
    For instance, is the following line legal IDL or not:

    const short s = 0xFFFF; // Valid???

    If the interpretation of "0xFFFF" in this context is "65535", then
    this is illegal, since the value is out of range. If the interpretation
    is "-32768", then this assignment is valid. The wording in this section specifies that
    each operand is converted immediately to the size of the eventual
    storage location, but fails to specify how that conversion is to be
    performed for hexadecimal and octal literals.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 4 Feb 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue

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

Inheritance of value types

  • Key: CORBA23-67
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2446
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: There is a need for clarification regarding inheritance
    for value types. Must a value type that inherits from
    abstract bases always inherit from a "concrete"
    value? This seems to be enforced by the IDL
    grammar and the introduction of the ValueBase
    primitive type (as a concrete base in case no
    other concrete base is inherited).

    This seems somewhat ambiguous.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 9 Feb 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    close this issue with the note that it is resolved as part of 2490 in 2.4

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

Problems in Chapter 5 IDL

  • Key: CORBA23-66
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2444
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In ptc/98-12-04 Chapter 5, page 5-14, a DataInputStream operation
    has the signature "long long long read_long()". It should be
    "long long read_longlong()"

    Also, the spelling of W[Cc]harSeq is inconsistent between its
    declaration and its usage on pages 5-12 to 5-14.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 9 Feb 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change in 2.4

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

DynStruct::get_members needs exception

  • Key: CORBA23-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1679
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: If get_members is called on a DynStruct whose members have not been
    initialized, what should it do? It can"t return any values, because there
    are none.

    I suggest allowing it to raise DynAny::Invalid in this case. If there are
    objections to adding a raises clause, I suggest having it raise BAD_INV_ORDER.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 14 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    incorproate changes and close issue in 2.4

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

Lifetime of ORB and validity of ORB pointe

  • Key: CORBA23-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1665
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In CORBA 2.2 added the ORB::shutdown operation. What operations are
    valid during the potentially lengthy shutdown process while ongoing
    operations complete? What is the validity of the ORB reference after the
    shutdown? Is the ORB destroyed? Can a new ORB be reconstituted by
    ORB_init?

    This issue came up during the port-rtf discussion for CORBA 2.3. It goes
    beyond considerations for the POA so it should be addressed by
    orb_revision.
    r

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 10 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix the problem as described below

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

Scoping resolution for member names

  • Key: CORBA23-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2202
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The wording of the current 2.3 spec says nothing to suggest that member names in structs are in (or
    out) of the scope of the struct. That is, whether

    struct s {
    struct t

    {...}

    t;
    };

    is legal or illegal.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 10 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close this issue in 2.4 noting that the resolution of issue 1893 subsumes this issue.

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

Typo in POA

  • Key: CORBA23-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2200
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: On P. 11-52 I see:

    ...Assuming the POA has the USE_SERVANT_MANAGER policy and no servant
    manager is associated with a POA, any request received by the POA for
    an Object Id value not present in the Active Object Map will result
    in an OBJECT_NOT_EXIST exception.

    However on P. 11-9:

    If the POA has the USE_SERVANT_MANAGER policy, a servant manager
    has been associated with the POA so the POA will invoke incarnate or
    preinvoke on it to find a servant that may handle the request. (The
    choice of method depends on the NON_RETAIN or RETAIN policy of the
    POA.) If no servant manager has been associated with the POA, the POA
    raises the OBJ_ADAPTER system exception.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 9 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes in 2.4 and close issue.

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

void * in DII Chapter

  • Key: CORBA23-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2162
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Now that we have the native type, it is time to replace those void *s in
    the DII specification PIDL and restate them in terms of native types.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 3 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes in text and close issue.

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

set_servant_manager

  • Key: CORBA23-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1970
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: What exception should POA::set_servant_manager raise if the wrong servant
    manager type is passed? For example, if a POA has RETAIN and I try to
    register a ServantLocator, should set_servant_manager raise WrongPolicy, or
    some system exception? With respect to set_servant_manager, the spec says

    "This method requires the USE_SERVANT_MANAGER policy; if not present, the
    WrongPolicy exception is raised."

    Because WrongPolicy is used to denote whether set_servant_manager can be
    called correctly or not, it seems like the wrong exception to also use for
    the case of passing the wrong servant manager type. May I suggest that
    BAD_PARAM be raised in that case instead?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 24 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate change in 2.4 and close issue.

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

Handling of minor codes for standard exceptions underspecified

  • Key: CORBA23-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1969
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Looking at ptc-98-08-07, I find the discussion of minor codes hopelessly
    underspecified. The text in 3.17.2 doesn"t actually mention the OMG
    space explicitly; it should. Also, the definition of the partitioning
    of the minor code, at the beginning of 3.17, is hopelessly vague – what
    ``high order bits"" are used, what ``low order bits""? What"s the
    policy for obtaining a new vendor registration?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    I believe that this issue has been adequately addressed in the 2.3a revision. So I propose that we c

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

page 3-47: Identifiers

  • Key: CORBA23-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1893
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Page 3-47:

    "Identifiers for the following kinds of definitions are scoped:

    • types
    • constants
    • enumeration values
    • exceptions
    • interfaces
    • attributes
    • operations"

    I"m not sure I understand the purpose of this list. In particular, what
    is meant by "are scoped"? Scoped by what? I think the intent was to state
    that if any of these identifiers appears within a nested scope, it needs
    to be unique only within that nested scope?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 27 Aug 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes in 2.4 and close issue

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

Nested scopes

  • Key: CORBA23-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1892
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The name of an interface or a module may not be redefined within
    the immediate scope of the interface or the module. For example:

    module M {
    typedef short M; // Error: M is the name of the module
    in the scope of which the typedef is.
    interface I

    { void i (in short j); // Error: i clashes with the interface name I }

    ;
    };

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 27 Aug 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changed text and close issue in 2.4

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

What does interface substitutability mean in CORBA?

  • Key: CORBA23-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1997
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Thanks to Joaquin Miller, a question came up in the context of the OMA
    revision work that is going on in ORMSC about what the ORB vendors think
    "substitutability" means.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Tue, 29 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Which OBV initialiser to run is under-specified

  • Key: CORBA23-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1981
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Detail: The 2.3 draft says:

    There may be any number of init declarations, as long as the signatures
    of all the initializers declared within the same scope are unique.

    To me, this implies that initialiser selection is done by matching the actual call parameter types against the formal parameter types in all the initialisers, and choosing the one that applies. However (a) this isn"t said explicitly and (b) if it is the intention, it"s fairly easy to construct a case where no one initialiser is more applicable than any other. Assuming initialiser parameters are allowed to be interface types (it doesn"t say they aren"t), consider a declaration of two initialisers in the same scope with parameter interfaces A and B, then calling the initialiser with a parameter of C, an interface that inherits from both A and B. It is impossible to say that one initialiser is more or less applicable than the other. The specification should make clear what choice a compliant ORB should make.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Sun, 20 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes in 2.4 and close issue

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

Exception for abstract interface inheritance

  • Key: CORBA23-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2156
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Abstract interfaces can only inherit from other abstract interfaces,
    yet the Interface Repository chapter (98-10-08) does not define the
    behavior of an InterfaceDef object when an attempt is made to violate
    this rule.

    Text should be added to section 10.5.23.2 defining the behavior of
    the mutators is_abstract and base_interfaces.

    Since none of the BAD_PARAM minor codes really apply, it appears
    that a new one is needed.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 2 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

long double problem?

  • Key: CORBA23-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2119
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: (2.2 3-24) and (2.2 13-8)
    I"m no floating point expert, but it seems to me that these two
    definitions are inconsistent. The first implies 1 + 15 + 64 = 80
    bits of information, while the second implies 1 + 15 + 112 = 128 bits
    of information.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No inconsistency exists as explained in the archive.

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

Recursive exceptions?

  • Key: CORBA23-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2084
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Is the following IDL legal?

    exception e

    { sequence<e> e_seq; }

    ;

    The grammar permits it, so from that, I would have to conclude it"s legal.
    However, not all ORBs I"ve tried can handle this – some accept it and it
    works, others accept it but generate bad code, and yet others won"t compile
    the IDL.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 15 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Multiple paths to a recursive sequence typecode

  • Key: CORBA23-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1802
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: What exactly is the story for how the TypeCodes are created? Is there
    one call to create_recursive_sequence_tc per recursive sequence template in the
    source, or one per cycle in the type graph? I think this is worth clarifying
    in section 8.7.3, which doesn"t seem to conceive of the possibility of multiple
    type graph cycles through the same recursive sequence type.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    This was fixed in the process of resolving issue 1928 in Core Revision 2.3a. See resolution of 1928.

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

Change to IDL for anonymous types

  • Key: CORBA23-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1729
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Secondly, anonymous types are generally a pain to deal with
    for a language mapping. I know that anonymous sequences are
    a necessary evil because they are needed to define recursive
    structs and recursive unions. For example:

    struct node

    { long data; sequence<node> children; }

    ;

    However, IDL allows anonymous sequences and arrays to be used
    in other ways for which they are not essential.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 23 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

InconsistentTypeCode exception in CORBA 2.3

  • Key: CORBA23-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2070
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The current CORBA 2.3 ORB interface chapter (ptc/98-08-08) does not
    match the resolution which was voted on for the InconsistentTypeCode
    exception (issue 1089).

    The proposed resolution from ptc/98-05-01 was to place the exception
    in the ORB interface with InvalidName, not in the CORBA module.
    Jishnu, could we correct this mistake by moving InconsistentTypeCode
    from the CORBA module into the ORB interface?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Sat, 10 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Already fixed in 2.3a Draft

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

Recursive IDL types

  • Key: CORBA23-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2034
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The current spec is not terribly clear on how recursive IDL types are
    supposed to work.A minor problem here is that the terminating semicolon is missing following
    the closing curly brace.

    But more seriously, it leaves it open whether, for example, the following
    is legal:

    struct foo {
    union u switch (long)

    { case 0: sequence<foo> foo_mem; case 1: char c_mem; }

    u_mem;

    long l_mem;
    };

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Mon, 5 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

DynUnion::member()

  • Key: CORBA23-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1974
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: What does DynUnion::member() return if a union does not have a default
    case label and has no active member? A nil reference? A DynAny
    with TCKind tk_null?

    It"s not specified, but should be.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Thu, 17 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    incorporate change and close in 2.4

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

Missing equality for DynAny

  • Key: CORBA23-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1972
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Type DynAny has no equality operator. This makes it impossible
    to determine whether or not two DynAnys contain the same value, unless
    I am prepared to recursively iterate over all of a DynAny"s components
    to determine whether they are equal. This is rather inconvenient.

    I would suggest to add a new operation to DynAny:

    boolean equal(in DynAny da);

  • Reported: CORBA 2.2 — Wed, 30 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    added comparison operator

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

CORBA::Contained::describe() underspecified

  • Legacy Issue Number: 918
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The describe() operation of the CORBA::Contained interface of the
    Interface Repository is under-specified in CORBA 2.1. (section 7.5.3
    on page 7-12). The text should add that the "kind" field of the returned
    Description struct should give the DefinitionKind for the "most derived"
    type of the object. Without this, the spec can be read as allowing
    describe() to return a kind of dk_Typedef, or even dk_all!

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Sun, 25 Jan 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    incorporate the proposed clarification

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

Trader constraint language and international characters

  • Legacy Issue Number: 915
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: the trader constraint language (page 16-98, 2.1 spec) defines a
    character class "<other>". This class is used in the definition of
    what characters may appear inside a string literal (on page 16-97).
    The problem is that the definition limits the legal character values
    that may appear in a string literal. Only character positions 0x1
    to 0x7f are legal, anything else is illegal.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Wed, 21 Jan 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace section B.2.3 with corresponding text from the ISO Trader standard

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

defined_in member of ModuleDescription for top-level module

  • Legacy Issue Number: 913
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: What is the value member of what is returned by
    CORBA::Contained::describe when invoked on a CORBA::ModuleDef object
    corresponding to a top-level IDL module?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Wed, 21 Jan 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate change in 2.3 and close issue

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

#pragma processing

  • Key: CORBA22-99
  • Legacy Issue Number: 910
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: On page 7-32, the 2.1 spec says about #pragma processing:
    An IDL compiler must either interpret these annotations
    as specified, or ignore them completely.
    I don"t think this makes sense.
    If the prefix pragma isn"t honored in one ORB, but used by another ORB,
    the repository IDs will disagree for types generated from the same
    IDL definition, but with different IDL compilers. This in turn means
    that interoperability is destroyed.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Fri, 23 Jan 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See resolution of 999 , close issue

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

Ambiguity in non_existent() specification

  • Key: CORBA22-98
  • Legacy Issue Number: 903
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: There is a minor ambiguity here. Consider the case where the ORB cannot
    make a reliable determination because the client-side run-time cannot
    reach the implementation repository or the server. In that case, most
    ORBs will raise a TRANSIENT or COMM_FAILURE exception. I can read the
    above words in the spec to mean that a compliant implementation of
    non_existent is allowed to hide the exception from me and return false
    instead.
    I suggest to amend the wording such that non_existent is obliged to propagate
    any exception other than OBJECT_NOT_EXIST back to the caller.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Tue, 13 Jan 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Sugested text below , close issue

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

Inheritance of Exceptions

  • Legacy Issue Number: 912
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: This is a request to add an optional extension to IDL which would
    permit an exception declaration to include a specification of the
    superexception or superexceptions for a given exception, exactly the
    same way superinterfaces may be specified when defining an interface.The advantage of this extension is that it (optionally) permits
    interface designers to organize exceptions into categories, which can
    help clarify the design of the exceptions.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Thu, 22 Jan 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    close issue, resolved

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

Question about typecode creation

  • Legacy Issue Number: 911
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Consider the following operation in the ORB pseudointerface:

    TypeCode create_union_tc (
    in RepositoryId id,
    in Identifier name,
    in TypeCode discriminator_type,
    in UnionMemberSeq members)

    Suppose that in some mapping this is invoked with the given arguments,
    i.e. an id, a name, a discriminator_type, and members..
    For concreteness, suppose that the id argument has the value
    "IDL:foo/bar:1.0".

    There are three main cases:<<Go to issue archive>>

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Wed, 21 Jan 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add clarification to section 10.6 that consistency of RepositoryIds with the IDL source or the IR i

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

locally constrained

  • Key: CORBA22-95
  • Legacy Issue Number: 797
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: What is the consensus for the notation to use for interfaces to objects
    that are in the orb but not outside. We use to call them psuedo objects.
    During the last talk I got the feel that there are three options:

    1. //PIDL
    2. "psuedo" keyword placed before "interface"
    3. //locally constrained

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Tue, 9 Dec 1997 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

IDL types are ambiguous with inheritance

  • Key: CORBA22-94
  • Legacy Issue Number: 783
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: What is the return type of parent(), short or long? The spec does not say whether the inherited ::y::y::z takes precedence, or whether it is ::x::z. The scope resolution rules don"t mention how to resolve such an ambiguity. The spec should be updated to state that ::x::z takes precedence (IDL example in corresponding archive "issue783")

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Tue, 25 Nov 1997 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close noting that this has been explained in Revised Chapter 3.

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

Appendix B lists incorrect CORBA Components IDs

  • Key: CORBA22-97
  • Legacy Issue Number: 884
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: 1. Appendix B lists the CORBA Component IDs. This listing is
    incorrect: Proposed resolution: Change Appendix B to correspond to the
    main text.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Wed, 7 Jan 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposed resolution: Change Appendix B to correspond to the

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

union typecode (02)

  • Key: CORBA22-96
  • Legacy Issue Number: 812
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: 2. I cannot locate where the definition of typecodes for unions with
    members with multiple labels. The natural semantics with respect to
    the member accessor operations on that typecode and the CDR
    marshalling of that typecode would seem to be that the union
    declaration is treated as if the member definition in question were
    replicated once for each label.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Tue, 23 Dec 1997 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Incorrect definition of "object type"

  • Legacy Issue Number: 917
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The definition of interface and object type in the Object Model
    are imprecise, if not incorrect. [See section 1.2.5 of the Corba 2.1
    spec (Aug 1997)]

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Tue, 27 Jan 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify as follows

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

Resetting #pragma prefix?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 916
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: the spec doesn"t say how I can reset a repository ID prefix back to nothing
    after I have set it. Consider

    #pragma prefix "dstc.edu.au"
    interface foo {};
    #pragam prefix "" // Attempt to reset prefix
    interface bar {};

    This doesn"t work with at least one ORB I have tried.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Mon, 26 Jan 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See resolution of issue 999 , close issue

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

RIDs

  • Key: CORBA22-93
  • Legacy Issue Number: 780
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The definition of IDL Repository IDs the example in the IFR chapter 7.6.6 indicates that prefixes when not set are not separated. Definition says that "typically" it is the prefix and scoped name separated with "/".

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Fri, 7 Nov 1997 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fixed with sepcific example in section 10.6.5.2 in Rev 2.3

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

6.7.1 The TypeCode Interface All Paragraphs - objection

  • Key: CORBA22-54
  • Legacy Issue Number: 446
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: PIDL for this interface describes the exceptions that might be raised, but the text doesn"t define the conditions when all of those exceptions might occur. This must be addressed.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fixed in 2.2 close no change.

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

6.7 TypeCodes Paragraph 3 - objection

  • Key: CORBA22-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 445
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: It"s better to say "However, TypeCode "literals" shall have a representation such that they can be placed in C include files."

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Offending sentence removed in the resolution of issue 73. This is the same as issue 73

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

6.6.4 Pragma Directives for RepositoryId Para 1 - objection

  • Key: CORBA22-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 444
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Conforming compilers should ignore pragmas that are not defined. in this spec, and that they do not explicitly support. Portable applications should only use pragmas defined in this spec.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The proposal in the summary is unreasonably restrictive, and would disallow use of other pragmas i

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

CORE spec reference

  • Key: CORBA22-57
  • Legacy Issue Number: 459
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: CORE contains specific language binding information which should be in a language binding chapter or in a new appendix

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Such information now exists only in the way of examples of what a particular piece of pseudo-IDL me

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

6.7.2 TypeCode Constants Last Paragraph - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 448
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Para indicates that form of TypeCode constants might be implementation specific.Does that mean the contents of the TypeCode implementation as opposed to signature of programmer?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Offending language has been removed in Revision 2.3

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

6.7.1 The Type Code Interface Paragraph 4 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 447
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Last sentence: It"s not clear under which conditions this is permitted. It"s permitted when a structure,union,enumeration or alias typecode wasn"t obtained from Interface Repository.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fixed in 2.2 close no change

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

"service"~~operation or interface?

  • Key: CORBA22-64
  • Legacy Issue Number: 570
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Does a service consist of single operation, or a collection of related operations, exceptions, types, and constants?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Tue, 20 May 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Cleaning up the use of the word service throughout the document does not seem to be an achievable g

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

What exactly is a request

  • Key: CORBA22-63
  • Legacy Issue Number: 569
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: One may expect it to be a reply or response.Reading chapters 1,4,5 makes clear that it is the entirety of an invocation of an operation, including request and response. Change possible soon?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Tue, 20 May 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify the sense in which the term Request is used in section 1.2.2

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

inherit vs. include

  • Key: CORBA22-62
  • Legacy Issue Number: 568
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Ther is sense in which an interface "includes" operations it inherits from its base interface.Does it also "include" types, constants, and exceptions?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Wed, 21 May 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    close issue with annotation fixed in Rev 2.2+

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

Scope and use of prefix pragma in IDL-style repository IDs

  • Key: CORBA22-61
  • Legacy Issue Number: 567
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: There is confusion about effect of "prefix" pragma evident in the Interface Repository chapter. Whole notion of prefix should be explained more fully in section 6.6.1

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Mon, 12 May 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarifying language has been incorporated in section 10.6.5.2 (old section 8.6.5.2) in Rev 2.3 adeq

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

sec 17.7.1: IDL for interface request doesn"t match C++ mapping

  • Key: CORBA22-70
  • Legacy Issue Number: 598
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The IDL for interface Request does not match the C++ mapping. There are a series od add_arg methods in the mapping that should be added to the IDL.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Wed, 9 Jul 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Language mappings are allowed to have custom mappings for pseudo-interfaces.

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

Sequence parameter specified is ignored

  • Key: CORBA22-69
  • Legacy Issue Number: 597
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Why does mapping ignore the sequence parameter specified in the IDL for the initialization service and split this single parameter into 2 separate ones in the mapping?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Wed, 9 Jul 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    That is an artificat of C/C++ historical usage and is not a core issue. In general language mapping

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

request() should be added to IDL (section 17.13.2)

  • Key: CORBA22-68
  • Legacy Issue Number: 596
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The Object C++ mapping has an _request() method that is not in the IDL. This method should be added to the IDL

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Wed, 9 Jul 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The Object::_request operation is an artifact of the C++ mapping and not generally applicable to ot

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

Section 16.7: only C++ mapping defines string_free and string_dup

  • Key: CORBA22-67
  • Legacy Issue Number: 595
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Only the C++ mapping defines string_free and string_dup. Why are these methods not present in other language mappings? If they are generally applicable they should be added to the IDL

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Wed, 9 Jul 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    They are C++ language specific helper functions, that is why they are in the C++ mapping section. T

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

Enums and enumerators

  • Key: CORBA22-59
  • Legacy Issue Number: 545
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Sec 3.13 says enumerators don"t create a nested scope.Implication: 2 differnt enum types within same module can"t have same enumerator names. Flag following example as an error

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Thu, 10 Apr 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    issue closed, no change

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

Internationalization

  • Key: CORBA22-58
  • Legacy Issue Number: 499
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: New Idl types have been introduced to cover non-ISO code sets.Sec 5.4.1 indicates that where "generic strings" are required in a spec "wstring"should be used. Place holder in naming spec: Istring

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Wed, 12 Feb 1997 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    not interpretable, closed

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

limited-length strings

  • Key: CORBA22-66
  • Legacy Issue Number: 588
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Limited-length strings are missing from enumeration in section 1.2.4. Were they intended to go in "Basic Types" or the "Constructed types" section?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Thu, 29 May 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate change in 2.3a and close issue

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

Question about IDL grammar

  • Key: CORBA22-65
  • Legacy Issue Number: 571
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Is it a mistake, in IDL grammar as given in CORBA 2.0, revised July 1996, that <octet_type> is not one of <const_type>s?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Tue, 6 May 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    subsumed by issue 725

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

Terminology consistency

  • Key: CORBA22-60
  • Legacy Issue Number: 565
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: What terminology should the core settle on? Interface inheritance with use of subtype/supertype? What about immediate and transitive versions of relationships?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Tue, 20 May 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved closed issue

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

Pseudo-IDL identifiers differ by case only

  • Key: CORBA22-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 233
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: IDL identifiers in chapter 4 differ by case only [Ch 17 CORBA2.0] Some of the identifiers used in the IDL in Ch 4 differ only by case, which is not legal in IDL.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Mon, 14 Oct 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Apparent error in CORBA 2.0 Interoperability

  • Key: CORBA22-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 156
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: in 13.5.6 "The DCE ESIOP", "Location Policy Component" there is for module IOP a list of 4 "const octet statements.. The BNF appears to suggest that this is invalid.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 8 Oct 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    issue closed, no change

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

Repository IDs

  • Key: CORBA22-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 133
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: I would expect a lookup on IDL:/CORBA/Object:1.0 to return an InterfaceDef. It would seem more logical if Object was represented by a "default" InterfaceDef in the repository.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Mon, 23 Sep 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

Do typecodes need literal constant representations in all mappings?

  • Key: CORBA22-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 73
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 6.7 of the CORBA 2 spec constrains the representation of typecodes such that typecode "literals" can be placed in C include files. Is this meant?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 13 Aug 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The offending paragraph, which is now the para 3 of section 10.7, seems to not clearly state anythi

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

Missing info about the semantics of ORB_init and OA_init

  • Key: CORBA22-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 68
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The text associated with ORB_init and OA_init does not specify what is done with the argv parameter that requires it to be inout.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 13 Aug 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate change in 2.3a and close issue.

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

Typecodes for recursive sequences

  • Key: CORBA22-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 116
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In the interface for the create_recursive_sequence_tc ORB method, is this just a matter of creating a TypeCode with these two fields, or is there a parameter missing?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Fri, 13 Sep 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No parameter is missing. you just create a TypeCode with TCKind set to tk_sequence and content type

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

lookup() questions

  • Key: CORBA22-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 86
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Does the lookup() function also lookup in the base interfaces if used on an InterfaceDef? If so, what if it is is more than one interface? Can the search_name argument be a scoped name?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Thu, 15 Aug 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

DSI and oneway operations

  • Key: CORBA22-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 129
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: After calling a Dynamic Invocation Routine, how can the ORB know whether to send a response back to the client (i.e., whether the operation was "oneway")?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Mon, 23 Sep 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The ORB uses protocol information (i.e. from GIOP response_expected) to make this decision.

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

ServerRequest::op_def()

  • Key: CORBA22-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 128
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: What is the purpose of the ServerRequest::op_def method? It is not described in the Chap. 5 discussion of ServerRequest or in 18.4.1.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Mon, 23 Sep 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    close issue, no change

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

Interface Repository Error Handling

  • Key: CORBA22-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 85
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The IR specification specifies what operations are an error, but does not specify how this error is returned. The specification does not define any exceptions.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Thu, 15 Aug 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Superceded by Issue 778

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

CORBA::InterfaceDef name collision

  • Key: CORBA22-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 76
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: CORBA::InterfaceDef defines an operation "is_a", although there is already an "is_a" operation defined in CORBA::Object. Section 3.6 on page 3-17 says this is not allowed.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 13 Aug 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    close issue, resolved

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

IFR: union elements associated with case labels

  • Key: CORBA22-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: A union element associated with N case labels manifests in the IFR as N distinct UnionMembers. Is this intended?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Thu, 16 May 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

Inheritance of describe_contents()

  • Key: CORBA22-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Where does the OperationDef interface inherit the describe_contents() operation from.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Thu, 16 May 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    close issue, resolved

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

Containers

  • Key: CORBA22-92
  • Legacy Issue Number: 779
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: On the issue of making StructDef, UnionDef, and ExceptionDef inherit from container, would it be possible to introduce the depreciation of including anything other than members in these three types?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Fri, 7 Nov 1997 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue appears to be a rehash of the essence of Issue 777 so I recommend that we close this wit

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

Proposed IFR exceptions

  • Key: CORBA22-91
  • Legacy Issue Number: 778
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Proposed IFR exceptions raised by destroy() and move(): exception DependencyExists {}; raised by create_* and move(): exception RIDAlreadyDefined {}; exception NameALreadyDefined {};

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Fri, 7 Nov 1997 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate changes in 2.3a and close issue.

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

TypedefDef issue

  • Key: CORBA22-90
  • Legacy Issue Number: 777
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Is it legal for a TypedefDef to contain another TypedefDef that is NOT mentioned in it"s "members" attribute? If not, should the IR spec explicitly forbid this?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Thu, 30 Oct 1997 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, issue closed

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

CORBA 2.1 IR Structdef typo

  • Key: CORBA22-89
  • Legacy Issue Number: 776
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: "Read Interface" section of 7.5.10: The second sentence is a typo. The StructDef as a whole can "contain" structs, unions, and enums. However, the members attribute is a CORBA IDL data type not a subtype of Container, and hence cannot "contain" anything in the sense used elsewhere in the IR spec. The sentence should be deleted

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Thu, 30 Oct 1997 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove the second sentence in section 8.5.10 of Rev 2.2

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

Minor bug in 2.1 spec

  • Key: CORBA22-88
  • Legacy Issue Number: 754
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The grammar mentions fixed point literals for constsnts on page 3-12. The corresponding section of the grammar on page 3-19 does not include <fixed_pt_literal> as a valid constant initializer

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Tue, 21 Oct 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    incorporate changes in 2.3 and close this issue and 1066.

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

Inheriting exceptions in IDL

  • Key: CORBA22-87
  • Legacy Issue Number: 753
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: When writing IDL, why is it not possible to have an exception declaration inherit from another exception? It"s possible to have an interface inherit another interface, so it seems logical to derive an exception class from an already declared exception area

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Thu, 23 Oct 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    close issue with no change with the above explanation.

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

Non ASCII alphabetics in IDL identifiers

  • Key: CORBA22-81
  • Legacy Issue Number: 724
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: IDL identifiers can contain non-ASCII alphabetic characters. None of the language maappings deals with this. To fix this restrict IDL identifiers to ASCII characters, digits and underscore

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Since most of the implementation languages to which IDL is mapped do not accept non-ASCII character

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

Native types with respect to typecodes, DII, DSI,Interface Reposit.

  • Key: CORBA22-80
  • Legacy Issue Number: 666
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The portability spec is silent on issue of native types with respect to typecodes, DII, DSI and Interface Repository. Issue should be addressed. (see archive for details)

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Mon, 11 Aug 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposed resolution is to add representation of native type in the IR. Details below as proposed by

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

TypeCode equality

  • Key: CORBA22-79
  • Legacy Issue Number: 665
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: TypeCode equality is not very well-specified or portable.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Mon, 11 Aug 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate more complete specification as shown below:

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

Bug in the 2.1.spec for IDL unions

  • Key: CORBA22-84
  • Legacy Issue Number: 727
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Table 3-11 on page 3-26 shows wchar as al legal switch type for unions. The grammar on page 3-26 doesn"t have wchar as a legal switchtype. The same is true for grammar on page 3-13. Is wchar legal for union discriminator? Spec will need to be fixed

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Fri, 17 Oct 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Figure 2-2 in CORBA 2.0 and CORBA 2.1

  • Key: CORBA22-83
  • Legacy Issue Number: 726
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In the figure all the interfaces/skeletons/adaptors/stubs have either an Up-call or a Normal-call arrow or both with the exception of the Dynamic Skeleton which has neither

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Thu, 18 Sep 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add an Up-Call Arrow to the Dynamic skeleton box.

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

Octet and enum constants

  • Key: CORBA22-82
  • Legacy Issue Number: 725
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: IDL should permit enum and octet constants.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The following changes add enum and octet constants to IDL:

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

Section 7.8: editorial

  • Key: CORBA22-76
  • Legacy Issue Number: 623
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 7.8: ; is missing from definition of attribute policy_type

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Wed, 9 Jul 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close, Fixed in 2.2

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

Syntax for basic types must be updated

  • Key: CORBA22-75
  • Legacy Issue Number: 611
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 3.8.1: The syntax for basic types must be updated to include the adopted IDL type extensions.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Wed, 9 Jul 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fixed in 2.2

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

create_exception() is declared outside any interface scope

  • Key: CORBA22-74
  • Legacy Issue Number: 610
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 6.8: The create_exception() methos is declared outside any interface scope. It seems logical to move it to Container Interface along with other create_XXX() methods

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Wed, 9 Jul 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fixed in 2.2

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

Inclusion of standard exception

  • Key: CORBA22-86
  • Legacy Issue Number: 751
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The proposal is to define a new standard exception, called
    EXTERNAL_ACCESS (the name is not important) that carries
    an any value. Another alternative may be to re-define
    the exception COMM_FAILURE so that it may carry an any in
    addition to the existing minor and completed fields.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Mon, 6 Oct 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    close no change in 2.4

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

Issue with ObjectId_to_string and string_to_ObjectId

  • Key: CORBA22-85
  • Legacy Issue Number: 749
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 18.4 "illegal characters": It should be clarified what corresponds to the concept of "illegal characters". On the othe hand, do we want to specify that ObjectIds generated by the POA should not include those "illegal characters?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.1 — Mon, 6 Oct 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Do identifiers and keywords clash if they differ in case?

  • Key: CORBA22-78
  • Legacy Issue Number: 641
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 3.2.3 and 3.2.4: It"s not said explicitly that an identifier may not differ from a keyword only in case since it differs only in case from a keyword

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Wed, 30 Jul 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fixed in 2.2+, Close

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

Section 3.7.2: take new IDL type extensions into account

  • Key: CORBA22-77
  • Legacy Issue Number: 624
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The section states that the <<and>> operands must be in the range 0 to 32. Should be changed to 0 to 64 to take new IDL type extensions into account

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Wed, 9 Jul 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close, Fixed in 2.2

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

TCKind enum should be updated

  • Key: CORBA22-73
  • Legacy Issue Number: 609
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 6.8: TCKind enum should be updated to include adopted IDL type extensions as follows: tk_longlong, tk_longdouble, tk_wstring, tk_wchar. Update DefinitionKind and PrimitiveKind enum

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Wed, 9 Jul 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close, fixed in 2.2

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

No defined value for OBJECT_NIL

  • Key: CORBA22-72
  • Legacy Issue Number: 607
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 7.2.3: reference is made to OBJECT_NIL but there is no defined value for this. A value must be explicitly defined and typed

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Wed, 9 Jul 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

Section 7.2: get_implementation function

  • Key: CORBA22-71
  • Legacy Issue Number: 604
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Why does Object have a get_implementation function instead of a readonly implementation attribute? (likewise for get_interface)

  • Reported: CORBA 2.0 — Wed, 9 Jul 1997 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue, no change

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

4.6.2 set_on_value Paragraph 2 - objection

  • Key: CORBA22-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 402
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Text reads:"Currently, only string values are supported by the context object." Sentence should be deleted, since PIDL requires that a string be the value provided

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Propose apply resolution to rev 2.3 and close issue

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

4.3.1 sen3 - comment 23 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 400
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: X/Open recommends that this para is being reworded to require that applications call get_response after a send. Spec could also be modified to detect errors if response is not required

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    close issue, no change

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

4.6 Context Object Operations, Para 2 - objection

  • Key: CORBA22-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 399
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Spec reads " Property names are stored preserving their case, however names cannot differ simply by their case." This sentence should be deleted.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Propose to apply resolution as above and close issue in 2.3

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

4.1.3 Return Status and Exceptions

  • Key: CORBA22-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 395
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: X/Open recommends that the specification is being modified to require DII functions to return a Status as an unsigned long. Implementations without return value return value:non-conforming

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue, resolved

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

4.1.1 Common Data Structures, Paragraph 6, comment

  • Key: CORBA22-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 393
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The usage of len could easily lead to a situation where it was inconsistent with TypeCode through erronous usage. WOuld be great if standard System exception was available for this case.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change in 2.3a

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

4.6.4 get_values Paragraph 5 - objection

  • Key: CORBA22-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 406
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Text reads " If the specified scope name is not found, an exception is returned." Error to be indicated must be specified. See objection for Paragraph 2.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See resolution of 404

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

4.6.4 get_values Paragraph 4 - objection

  • Key: CORBA22-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 405
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Text indicates that "Value scope names are implementation-specific." Items not necessary for portable development of applications are unspecified,undefined.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove paragraph 4. Does not add any value to the spec.

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

4.6.4 get_values Paragraph 2 - objection

  • Key: CORBA22-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 404
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The error to be returned must be specified.. Since a status is not required to be returned, it"s incorrect to say that error is returned. Exception is raised.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    add text to sections 5.6.4, 5.6.5 and 5.6.7 stating what exceptions are raised under what condition

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

4.6.3 set_values

  • Key: CORBA22-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 403
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: See comment on set_value in issue # 402

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Propose apply resolution to rev 2.3 and close issue

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

Interface for managing interceptors is missing

  • Key: CORBA22-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 380
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: List of interceptors to be called during request and order in which interceptor will be called: Needs to be resolved by Alec Thomas but shouls also be moved to ORB RFT

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Mon, 18 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    close no change

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

Portability and the #include directive

  • Key: CORBA22-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 306
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: #include has same definition that C and C++ programmers are used to.HP treats #include at global scope as merely introducing declarations. This idea needs closer examination

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Sat, 23 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    close no change in 2.4

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

4.2.2 add_arg Paragraph 5-comment

  • Key: CORBA22-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 397
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: X/Open believes there is no need to use different wording. They don"t believe that it is useful to indicate that mixing of methods might be allowed someday

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    In Section 5.2.2 Para 5 Rev 2.2 remove the word "currently" from the last sentence

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

4.2.1 create_request Paragraph 8 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 396
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: This paragraph should be deleted, since it is not useful for an application programmer.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    issue closed, no change

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

6.4.3 Interface Objects Paragraph 3 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 420
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Final Para describes the types of support interfaces that might be available in some implementations. These are not interesting for portable application develpoment.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    no change necessary, issue closed

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

4.6.7 delete Paragraph 4 - objection

  • Key: CORBA22-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 409
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The exception to be returned is not specified. See objection for 4.6.4 get_values Paragraph 2.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see resolution of 404

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

Recursive sequence TypeCodes

  • Key: CORBA22-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 300
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Are they a new TypeCode kind (tk_kind) or are they of the tk_sequence TypeCode kind/

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 29 Oct 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    subsumed by issue 116, close issue.

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

Similar structure to IR::Identifier

  • Key: CORBA22-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 283
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: There is no such type as IR::Identifier? It should really say CORBA::Identifier. Are ServiceTypeNames limited to characters allowed in IDL Identifier and also case sensitive?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Sat, 19 Oct 1996 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved in 2.2

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

4.6.5 delete_values Paragraph 3 - objection

  • Key: CORBA22-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 408
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: This paragraph indicates that an exception is returned. See objection for 4.6.4 get_values Paragraph 2

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see resolution of 404

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

6.5.4 Container Paragraph 10 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-40
  • Legacy Issue Number: 429
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: This para and para 4 both describe a limiy_type argument. These should be described in the same way since they appear to have the same semantics

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate resolution and close issue.

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

6.5.4 Container Paragraph 8 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-39
  • Legacy Issue Number: 428
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: What other values of levels_to_search are legal? What happens if values other than those described are used?Is an exception raised? If so, what exception?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

6.5.4 Container Paragraph 6 - editorial

  • Key: CORBA22-38
  • Legacy Issue Number: 427
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Para starts the description of the arguments for the lookup_name operation. It should stand out more instead of being intended in such a way that it looks like part of previous item"s description.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    changed, close issue

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

6.5.8 ConstantDef Interface Paragraph 2 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 437
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: There should be a pointer to the list of simple types.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace the phrase "simple type( ..... )" by the phrase "primitive types allowed in a constant decl

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

6.5.6 Repository Paragraph 4 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 435
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: This Para refers to a PrimitiveDef. There should be a pointer to where this is defined.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    In section 8.5.6 second para under Read Interface, add a cross reference to section 8.5.13 where Pr

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

6.5.4 Container Paragraph 15 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 432
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Para describes create_<type> operations. It indicates that there are errors returned under differing circumstances. Possible errors should be defined.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Superceded by 778

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

6.5.20 AttributeDef Paragraph 2 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-48
  • Legacy Issue Number: 440
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: What does the describe operation return for this interface?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add the sentence "The describe operation for an AttributeDef object returns an AttributeDescription

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

6.5.11 UnionDef Last Paragraph - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 439
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: This Para indicates that the type member is ignored and that it should be set to TC_void. If it is ignored, why should it be set to anything?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate resolution and close issue

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

6.5.10 StructDef Last paragraph - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 438
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Para indicates that the type member is ignored and that it should be set to TC_void. If it is ignored, why should it be set to anything?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove the phrase "is ignored" from the last sentence of section 8.5.9 rev 2.2

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

6.6.1 OMG IDL Format Paragraph 5 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-51
  • Legacy Issue Number: 443
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The semantics of minor version number changes should be a requirement on conforming applications (objects).

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    That"s what the sections appears to say. close issue, no change

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

6.5.22 InterfaceDef Paragraphs 7 and 8 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-50
  • Legacy Issue Number: 442
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: These paras indicate that an error is returned if the ID already exists in the repository. What is the error and what happens of the IR supports versioning?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Superceded by 778

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

6.5.22 InterfaceDef Paragraph 6 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-49
  • Legacy Issue Number: 441
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: This Para indicates that the base_interface attribute can return an error if there are name conflicts. What error is returned?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Subsumed by 778

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

6.5.4 Container Paragraph 5 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-37
  • Legacy Issue Number: 426
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Para descibes exclude_inherited argumentto the content operation. Format is poor, it"s not clear what the default setting for this argument might be (if any).

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    no change required, close issue

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

6.5.4 Container Paragraph 2 - objection

  • Key: CORBA22-36
  • Legacy Issue Number: 425
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: It"s not clear what lookup operation returns when it is successful. We can tell from the IDL, but it should be explicitly defined. We think it returns object reference to scoped name.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    no change required, close issue

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

6.5.3 Contained - Paragraph 7 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 423
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: This initial Para of the Write Interface section indicates that an error is returned if an object with specified ID attribute already exists. Error should be specified.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close with annotation as above.

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

6.5.3 Contained Paragraph 2 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 422
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Para indicates that IRs are not required to support simultaneous containment of multiple versions of the same named object. Required that IRs are able to handle multiple versions of objects

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

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

6.5.4 Container Paragraph 12 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-42
  • Legacy Issue Number: 431
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Para refers to the describe operation. This operation is part of the parent interface from which container interface is inherited.There should be a pointer to the parent interface

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close no change

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

6.5.4 Container Paragraph 11 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-41
  • Legacy Issue Number: 430
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Same as issue # 429 with respect to 6.5.4 Container Paragraph 5.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorporate resolution and close issue.

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

6.5.3 Contained Paragraph 10 - comment

  • Key: CORBA22-35
  • Legacy Issue Number: 424
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Para indicates that name attribute is changed to new_name, and version attribute is changed to new_version. If name already exists and IR doesn"t support versioning=error. What error?

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Subsumed by 778 . Closed with that annotation

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

6.5.2 IRObject Paragraph 3 - objection

  • Key: CORBA22-32
  • Legacy Issue Number: 421
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Write Interface description indicates that it is error to invoke destroy on a Repository or PrimitiveDef. Should state that behavior is undefined.

  • Reported: CORBA 1.2 — Tue, 26 Nov 1996 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    close issue, resolved

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