Need to reflect the change in the PSS specification, in which the catalog is not user-defined anymore. The example and the cidl syntax (chapter 2) need to be changed too.

Deferred

This proposal was generated automatically by request of the Task Force Chair Adam Mitz.

Need to reflect the change in the PSS specification, in which the catalog is not user-defined anymore. The example and the cidl syntax (chapter 2) need to be changed too.

The EnterpriseComponent should have a get_servant method. When creating component or facet reference of service or session component, the first step is creating the object reference and associating its PortableServer::ObjectId with servant. Currently, the container manages executor, but the EnterpriseComponent interface does not provide a mechanism to get servant. The method would be very useful as it means the container can use executor to get servant, which is not possible now.

Resolution:

Replace the following text in formal/02-06-05 on page 3-39

module Components { local interface EnterpriseComponent {}; };

with

module Components { local interface EnterpriseComponent

; };

and add the operation description

get_servant

The get_servant operation returns a reference to the servant.

Deferred

This proposal was generated automatically by request of the Task Force Chair Adam Mitz.

The EnterpriseComponent should have a get_servant method. When creating component or facet reference of service or session component, the first step is creating the object reference and associating its PortableServer::ObjectId with servant. Currently, the container manages executor, but the EnterpriseComponent interface does not provide a mechanism to get servant. The method would be very useful as it means the container can use executor to get servant, which is not possible now.

Resolution:

Replace the following text in formal/02-06-05 on page 3-39

module Components { local interface EnterpriseComponent {}; };

with

module Components { local interface EnterpriseComponent

; };

and add the operation description

get_servant

The get_servant operation returns a reference to the servant.

The definition of the stereotype CORBAPrimaryKey makes too strong restrictions. The CORBA Component Model defines a primary key as an ordinary valuetype, which is derived from Components::PrimaryKeyBase. Using the stereotype PrimaryKey would prevent me from using this valuetype in other parts of my application as a plain valuetype (e.g operation parameter). Suggestion: Remove stereotyp CORBAPrimaryKey. Use stereotype CORBAValueDef instead and refomulate the constraints accordingly. (e.g. inheritance)

Facet and Receptacles (ports) are specified as an UML association, but their names are specified as role names of the association end of the referenced interface. It means, the component refers directly to the external interface – it’s confusing and less intuitiv. Suggestion: Facet and Receptacle names are the names of the associations, describing ports.

The (IDL) definition of the example is not correct. The valuetyp for the key is not allowed to be abstract and it must have at least one public member. Furthermore, this key needs to be derived from Components::PrimaryKeyBase. The picture of the UML model should also be completely shown (i.e. including the member of the primary key). Suggestion: Modify example (IDL and picture)

Event ports are specified as an UML association, but their names are specified as role names of the association end of the referenced event. It means, the component refers directly to the external event – it’s confusing. Suggestion: Event port (such as Facet and Receptacle) names are the names of the associations.

Association with <<CORBAManages>> between HomeImplDef and ComponentImplDef is needed, otherwise you can’t navigate and define what HomeImplDef manages what ComponentImplDef.

Figure6: associations described Event ports have to be composite associations.

chapter 69.4.5.4
"The information obtained by (...) it allows component assembly
tools to decide WHAT ports
on a component are capable (...)"
it seems that the word "which" would be better than "what" in
this sentence

Replace "what" by "which".