ADA Language Mapping Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

ADA Language Mapping — All Issues

  • Acronym: ADA
  • Issues Count: 20
  • Description: All Issues
Open Closed All
All Issues

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
ADA13-21 Interface/valuetype forward declarations and Ada2005 ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Closed; No Change closed
ADA13-20 Table 2-1 in section 2.2.4 ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Resolved closed
ADA13-19 Mapping of reopened modules to Ada ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Resolved closed
ADA13-18 IDL to Ada mapping for valuetypes ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Closed; No Change closed
ADA13-17 Concern about the mapping of valuetypes to Ada ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Closed; No Change closed
ADA13-16 Insecurity about literals of typedefed enums ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Resolved closed
ADA13-15 Inconsistency in the definition of the location of TC_Object ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Resolved closed
ADA13-14 declaration of an UnknownUserException ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Resolved closed
ADA13-13 Mapping of CORBA.Request in Ada ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Resolved closed
ADA13-12 Addition of a constructor for "empty" Any objects. ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Resolved closed
ADA13-11 ada language mapping specification -- TYPOS ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Resolved closed
ADA13-10 mapping of IDL factories (initializers) for valuetypes ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Resolved closed
ADA13-9 tagged types mapped from abstract interfaces ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Resolved closed
ADA13-8 narrowing of valuetypes ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Resolved closed
ADA13-7 Inconsistency in the definition of implementation object types. ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Resolved closed
ADA13-6 CORBA 2.3 Ada, Mapping for Wide String Types ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Resolved closed
ADA13-5 21.2.7 Mapping Summary - Names and Scoping ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Resolved closed
ADA13-4 ptc/99-02-02: 21.22.1 Handling Known Types ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Resolved closed
ADA13-3 ptc/99-02-02: Impl side mapping and the POA ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Resolved closed
ADA13-2 Mapping for String Types - Bounded Strings ADA 1.2 ADA 1.3 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

Interface/valuetype forward declarations and Ada2005

  • Key: ADA13-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12752
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Oliver Kellogg)
  • Summary:

    Ada2005 features a new language construct, the "limited with" clause,
    which brings direct support for forward declarations to the Ada language.
    The mapping of interface and valuetype forward declarations (section 4.9
    of the Ada mapping version 1.2) could be much simplified by using this
    feature.

    In order to preserve backward compatibility, I suggest retaining the current
    mapping using the CORBA.Foward packages, but marking that mapping as
    obsolescent.

    I propose adding a new mapping which takes advantage of the Ada2005
    "limited with" clause, accompanied by a recommendation that new code
    should use this simplified mapping.

    The example given in section 4.9.3 of formal/01-10.42,

    interface Chicken;
    interface Egg

    { Chicken hatch(); }

    ;
    interface Chicken

    { Egg lay(); }

    ;

    could be mapped as follows:

    – code mapped from interface Egg
    with CORBA.Object;
    limited with Chicken;

    package Egg is

    type Ref is new CORBA.Object.Ref with null record;

    procedure hatch (Self : in Ref; Result : out Chicken.Ref'Class);

    function To_Ref (The_Ref : in CORBA.Object.Ref'Class)
    return Ref;

    end Egg;

    – code mapped from interface Chicken
    with CORBA.Object;
    with Egg;

    package Chicken is

    type Ref is new CORBA.Object.Ref with null record;

    procedure lay (Self : in Ref; Result : out Egg.Ref'Class);

    function To_Ref (The_Ref : in CORBA.Object.Ref'Class)
    return Ref;

    end Chicken;

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Thu, 7 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Introduction of Ada 2005 features into the mapping would be beyond the scope of what
    an RTF could do; it would require a full RFP to do this.

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

Table 2-1 in section 2.2.4

  • Key: ADA13-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12426
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Objective Interface Systems ( Victor Giddings)
  • Summary:

    Table 2-1 in section 2.2.4 contains a couple of columns labelled "Applicable to". However the entries in the columes are the number "4". (These are probably meant to be check marks.)

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolved as suggested: change the numeral “4” to “check mark”.

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

Mapping of reopened modules to Ada

  • Key: ADA13-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5859
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Oliver Kellogg)
  • Summary:

    The IDL to Ada mapping specification version 1.2 (01-10-42)
    does not mention how to map reopened IDL modules to Ada.

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Fri, 21 Feb 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Since the CORBA specification says that re-opened modules add to the same
    module, it was not felt to be necessary to explicitly provide a mapping. However,
    a clarifying statement to that effect will be added.

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

IDL to Ada mapping for valuetypes

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

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

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

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

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

    ===================
    Further Elaboration

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

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

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

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

    No Data Available

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

Concern about the mapping of valuetypes to Ada

  • Key: ADA13-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5768
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Oliver Kellogg)
  • Summary:

    The IDL to Ada mapping version 1.2 (01-10-42) of valuetypes
    causes serious problems when combined with other IDL constructs.

    Here is an example:

    // file: my_module.idl
    module my_module {

    valuetype vtype

    { public short member; }

    ;

    typedef vtype array_of_vtype[10];

    /* Further sources of problems:
    *
    struct struct_with_vtype

    { vtype smember; }

    ;

    union union_with_vtype switch (boolean)

    { case true: vtype umember; }

    ;
    */

    };

    The array_of_vtype cannot be mapped to Ada, neither can the
    struct_with_vtype or union_with_vtype.

    I propose a change to the mapping for valuetypes as follows:

    " A valuetype shall be mapped to a package, or a nested package
    when the valuetype is declared within a module. "

    For clarity, here is the mapping that I propose for the above
    example:

    – file: my_module.ads
    with CORBA.Value;

    package my_module is

    package vtype is

    type Value_Ref is new CORBA.Value.Base with null record;

    Null_Value : constant Value_Ref;

    procedure Set_member
    (Self : in Value_Ref;
    To : in CORBA.Short);

    function Get_member
    (Self : in Value_Ref)
    return CORBA.Short;

    private
    – elided
    end vtype;

    type array_of_vtype is array (0 .. 9) of vtype.Value_Ref;

    end my_module;

    The change of mapping also affects the naming rules for the
    generated Value_Impl package because in Ada, it is not possible
    to formulate child packages of nested packages.
    I propose the following naming scheme for the Value_Impl
    package:

    The name of the Value_Impl package be formed from the name
    of the value type mapped package with "_Value_Impl" appended.

    Thus, the name of the Value_Impl package for the above example
    would be: my_module.vtype_Value_Impl.

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Wed, 27 Nov 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    We understand the intent of this and agree that this is a problem. However, it is a
    problem that is also present with the mapping of interface, e.g., we cannot map
    the following IDL:
    interface foo { };
    typedef sequence<foo> fooSeq; with child packages. In actuality, the IDL compiler has to generate a "forward
    reference" and then define a sequence of the forward reference as fooSeq.
    This "flaw" in the mapping was recognized in the initial mapping effort and was
    the subject of pretty extensive debate. The child package mapping of interface
    had several other advantages: the ability to map the implementation package to
    child packages of the interface, and the ability to use them along with forward
    references to map the circular dependencies of interface (see the infamous
    Chicken and Egg example.)
    This flaw has been a problem in only a couple of cases over the 12+ years of the
    current mapping (unfortunately the IR was one of them).
    Thus, we are reluctant to make the change suggested by this issue. Granted it is
    for valuetypes, not IDL interfaces, but consistency is important.
    Disposition: Closed, No Change

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

Insecurity about literals of typedefed enums

  • Key: ADA13-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5682
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Oliver Kellogg)
  • Summary:

    Description:

    Given the declarations

    module m_a {
    enum enum_a

    { value_1, value_2 }

    ;
    };
    module m_b

    { typedef m_a::enum_a enum_b; }

    ;

    I believe the following is illegal:

    const m_b::enum_b bconst = m_b::value_2;

    Instead, to define such a constant in IDL, one needs to write

    const m_b::enum_b bconst = m_a::value_2;

    However, when mapping the typedefed enum to Ada, a derived type is
    created.
    The derived type implicitly creates visibility of the enum literals
    in the new scope (in this example, module m_b).
    Furthermore, enum_a and enum_b are not assignment-compatible in Ada.

    A clarification should be added to the Ada mapping stating that
    all mentions of scope prefixes at enum literals must be converted to
    match the Ada rules.
    Thus the above example

    const m_b::enum_b bconst = m_a::value_2;

    must be mapped as follows to Ada:

    bconst : constant m_b.enum_b := m_b.value_2;

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Wed, 9 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accept the proposed resolution

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

Inconsistency in the definition of the location of TC_Object

  • Key: ADA13-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3736
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    A CORBA implementation for Ada 95 must provide a typecode constant
    for predefined type Object. This typecode constant is a function
    "function TC_Object return CORBA.TypeCode.Object".

    According to the standard declaration of package CORBA
    (5.4 CORBA package), "function TC_Object is in CORBA.Object".

    According to the standard declaration of package CORBA.Object
    (5.2.2 Object), package CORBA.Object does not contain any such
    declaration.

    Thus we claim that there exist an inconsistency in the definition
    of the location of function TC_Object.

    The proposed resolution of this issue is to define a standard
    location for funtion TC_Object. For consistency with user-defined
    interfaces, we propose that a new standard package CORBA.Object.Helper
    be defined, containing the declaration of function TC_Object.
    We propose that the declaration of package CORBA be updated to
    mention that function TC_Object is in CORBA.Object.Helper.

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Tue, 4 Jul 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accept as suggested. Add new section describing the CORBA.Object.Helper package

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

declaration of an UnknownUserException

  • Key: ADA13-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3722
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The dynamic invocation interface does not provide a way of raising
    the exception potentially returned by a dynamic call. We thus propose to

    add the following definitions in the CORBA package :

    UnknownUserException : exception;
    type UnknownUserException_Members is
    new CORBA.IDL_Exception_Members with record
    IDL_Exception : CORBA.Any;
    end record;

    procedure Get_Members
    (From : Ada.Exceptions.Exception_Occurrence;
    To : out UnknownUserException_Members);

    corresponding to the following pseudoIDL :

    exception UnknownUserException

    { any _Exception; }

    ;

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accept as suggested

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

Mapping of CORBA.Request in Ada

  • Key: ADA13-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3706
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Modification of the IDL specification of the CORBA.Object
    package in order to include another way of creating Requests.
    Addition of two new interfaces : ExceptionList and ContextList.
    Modification of the CORBA.Request package to allow the user to
    set the result type.

    Description:
    The mapping of the IDL specification of the CORBA.Object package in

    Ada provides a single way of creating requests through the
    create_request procedure. This procedure does not take into account the
    context nor the exception possibly returned by the method invoked.
    Therefore I suggest to add a new create_request procedure whose Ada
    specification is :

    procedure Create_Request
    (Self : in CORBA.AbstractBase.Ref;
    Ctx : in CORBA.Context.Ref;
    Operation : in Identifier;
    Arg_List : in CORBA.NVList.Ref;
    Result : in out NamedValue;
    Exc_List : in ExceptionList;
    Ctxt_List : in ContextList;
    Request : out CORBA.Request.Object;
    Req_Flags : in Flags);

    The specification of the types ExceptionList and ContextList are mapped
    from the following pseudo Idl :

    interface ExceptionList

    { readonly attribute unsigned long count; void add(in TypeCode exc); TypeCode item(in unsigned long index) raises(Bounds); void remove(in unsigned long index) raises(Bounds); }

    ;

    pseudo interface ContextList

    { readonly attribute unsigned long count; void add(in string ctxt); string item(in unsigned long index) raises(Bounds); void remove(in unsigned long index) raises(Bounds); }

    ;

    In addition, a method is missing in the package CORBA.Request to allow
    the user to set the result type if he passed a null NamedValue at
    creation of the request. I suggest to add the following method in
    CORBA.Request :

    package CORBA.request

    { procedure Set_Return_Type (CORBA.TypeCode.Object Tc); }

    ;

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Reject first suggestion: new create_request operation and attendant “list” types. Contexts
    are not returned from operations in Replies, only provided in Requests and that parameter
    is provided at request creation. Exceptions are not returned in Request objects for later
    query; they are raised as the result of Invoke or Get_Result. The definitions of
    ExceptionList and ContextList are not needed as a result.
    Reject suggestion of Set_Return_Type. The result will be returned in a NamedValue, thus
    the TypeCode of the result must be set when passed to Create_Request, or by Invoke or
    Get_Result (by consulting the IR).
    Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Addition of a constructor for "empty" Any objects.

  • Key: ADA13-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3705
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    There is at this moment no way of creating an Any with a given
    type but no value. This is however helpfull (if not needed) when
    creating the Any passed (through a NamedValue) as the result parameter
    of the CORBA.create_request method. I suggest to add a constructor for
    Any objects with the following syntax :
    package CORBA

    { function Get_Empty_Any (Tc : in TypeCode.Object) return Any; }

    ;

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Since there is no interface that allows the value of a type Any to be set independent of resetting
    the TypeCode in the type Any, the value of this is not apparent.
    Disposition: Closed, no change

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

ada language mapping specification -- TYPOS

  • Key: ADA13-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3704
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    page 1.14, end of page:
    new PortableServer.Servant
    should be
    new PortableServer.ServantBase

    p 4.22, beginning of section 4.9.1,
    CORBA.Value_Forward
    should be
    CORBA.Value.Forward

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accept as suggested. However, searching has revealed other instances of the problem.
    The following revised text reflects all changes for these name substitutions.

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

mapping of IDL factories (initializers) for valuetypes

  • Key: ADA13-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3703
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Description: section 4.5.5 of the ada mapping specifies that IDL
    initializers have to be mapped into Ada functions. It reads "Thus they
    will be primitive on the value reference type". For example,

    // IDL
    valuetype VT

    { factory create(in long l); }

    is mapped into

    // ada
    package VT is
    type Value_Ref is ...
    function VT (l : in CORBA.Long) return Value_Ref;
    end VT;

    The fact that these functions be primitives implies that they have to
    be overriden for each inheriting valuetype. This implies code
    rewriting, with unprecise semantics: what should the semantic of the
    overriding function be ?

    Therefore, we suggest that the return type of the function be a
    Value_Ref'Class, so that these functions are not primitives, and do
    not have to be overriden.

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accept as suggested

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

tagged types mapped from abstract interfaces

  • Key: ADA13-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3702
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The current Ada mapping specifies that ada Abstract_Ref types
    mapped from IDL abstract interfaces should inherit directly
    from CORBA.AbstractBase.Ref, and not from CORBA.Object.Ref.

    It seems more natural to us to make Abstract_Ref types inherit
    from CORBA.Object.Ref. Otherwise, these Abstract_Ref tagged
    types would not inherit thr primitives of CORBA.Object.Ref
    (Is_A, Is_Equivalent, Hash)

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Close without change. The intended semantics for abstract interfaces are correctly
    reflected by inheriting from AbstractBase, rather than Object, as evidenced by the
    following section in the CORBA specification:
    “3. Abstract interfaces do not implicitly inherit from CORBA::Object. This is because
    they can represent either value types or CORBA object references, and value types do not
    necessarily support the object reference operations (see Section4.3, “Object Reference
    Operations,” on page4-8). If an IDL abstract interface type can be successfully narrowed
    to an object reference type (a regular IDL interface), then the CORBA::Object operations
    can be invoked on the narrowed object reference.”
    Disposition: Closed, no change

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

narrowing of valuetypes

  • Key: ADA13-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3701
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Paragraph 5.2.6 of CORBA v2.3.1 specifies that "value type
    instances may be widened/narrowed to other value types. Each language
    mapping is responsible for specifying how these operations are made
    available to the programmer." Ada mapping v1.2 specifies a
    To_Abstract_Value function to widen a value type to an abstract value
    type (paragraph 1.10.2.2). The same document reads that concrete value
    types may be widened to other concrete value types using ada's view
    conversion (paragraph 1.10.2.3). However, nothing is specified to
    support narrowing of value types (concrete or abstract) to inheriting
    concrete value types.

    Proposed solution: We propose the definition of a To_Value_Ref function
    in the helper package associated with the value type, with the following
    signature:
    function To_Value_Ref
    (From : in CORBA.Value.Base'Class)
    return Value_Ref;

    The semantic of this function would be to cast the object reference
    passed as a paramater to a reference of the current interface, if it
    is legal. Otherwise, this function would raise CORBA.Bad_Param.

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposed solution:
    We propose the definition of a To_Value_Ref function in the helper package
    associated with the value type, with the following signature:
    function To_Value_Ref
    (From : in CORBA.Value.Base'Class)
    return Value_Ref;
    The semantic of this function would be to cast the object reference passed as a
    parameter to a reference of the current interface, if it is legal. Otherwise, this
    function would raise CORBA.Bad_Param.
    Resolution:
    Accept as suggested.

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

Inconsistency in the definition of implementation object types.

  • Key: ADA13-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3627
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    4.4.2 "Base types" specifies that PortableServer.Servant_Base
    and CORBA.Value.Impl_Base shall inherit from CORBA.Impl.Object.

    5.2.3 "CORBA.Value.Base" and 5.2.6 "PortableServer.Servant_Base"
    show both types as "abstract tagged null record"s. This contradicts
    the aforementioned provision.

    The following revision is proposed to resolve this issue:

    • In 5.2.3 "CORBA.Value.Base" define type Impl_Base as
      "type Impl_Base is abstract new CORBA.Impl.Object with private;"
    • In 5.2.6 "PortableServer.Servant_Base", define type Servant_Base as
      "type Servant_Base is abstract new CORBA.Impl.Object with private;"
  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Fri, 19 May 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accepted as suggested. However, the definition of CORBA.Local.Object should
    also be similarly changed

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

CORBA 2.3 Ada, Mapping for Wide String Types

  • Key: ADA13-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2891
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: At the end of section 1.17 of the 99-07-29 document,
    there is:

    type WTitle is new CORBA.Bounded_Wide_String_512.Bounded_String;

    The wide string type should be Bounded_Wide_String if
    the CORBA.Bounded_Wide_Strings package is to have the
    same specification as
    Ada.Strings.Wide_Bounded.Generic_Bounded_Length.

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Wed, 15 Sep 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accepted as suggested; this seems to have been a cut and paste error.

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

21.2.7 Mapping Summary - Names and Scoping

  • Key: ADA13-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2657
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Oliver Kellogg)
  • Summary:

    Summary: Delete the paragraph:

    " This mapping supports the introduction of a subsystem name
    that serves as a root virtual module for all declarations
    in one or more files. When specified, subsystems create a
    library package. "

    The concept of subsystem is nowhere further explained.
    I believe this might be a remainder from the time when the
    #pragma Subsystem was supported.

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Tue, 18 May 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accept the proposed resolution; this is holdover from the removal of the pragma
    Subsystem feature proposed initially. However, referencing text needs to be deleted in
    both 1.3.1 and 1.9

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

ptc/99-02-02: 21.22.1 Handling Known Types

  • Key: ADA13-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2656
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Issue Type: Editorial

    21.22.1 Mapping for Any Type - Handling Known Types
    has:

    function Get_Type (The_Any : in Any) return TypeCode.Ref;

    The return type should be TypeCode.Object

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Tue, 18 May 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Comment is correct. However, this appears to be a latent typographical error since the
    correct type is used in the signature in section 5.4.

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

ptc/99-02-02: Impl side mapping and the POA

  • Key: ADA13-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2649
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Has the Ada RTF considered the generation of a POA_<interface_name>
    package for the Impl side mapping?

    This is the approach taken by the C and C++ mappings, and has
    the advantage of keeping the Impl package completely free of
    code required by the ORB.

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Mon, 10 May 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion:
    This approach was considered during the initial mapping development in 1995. It was
    rejected because it would preclude inheritance of a servant type from a servant mapped
    from a parent IDL interface, a use case considered much more important than the
    advantage cited. The use of “tie” implementations can achieve the cited advantage.
    Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Mapping for String Types - Bounded Strings

  • Key: ADA13-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2612
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: It should be clarified that mentions of the type String in this
    package refer to Standard.String. Being a child package of package
    CORBA, the type String in CORBA.Bounded_Strings otherwise refers to
    the type CORBA.String.

  • Reported: ADA 1.2 — Mon, 26 Apr 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ADA 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accept the proposed clarifications.
    • Add a parenthetical comments about package of String
    • Specify name and scope for instantiation.

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