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

no change to spec., close issue

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.

Duplicate of issue # 389...closed

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

clarified, close issue

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

resolved, close issue

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

resolved, close issue

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

resolved, close issue

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."

defer to portability

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.

No change to the specification. The existing spec supports a default ORB

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?

no change required, close issue

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??

resolved, close issue

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.

resolved, close issue

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.

resolved, close issue

Summary: The mention of the kind attribute should be bold-face

resolved, close issue

Summary: The trailing period is missing.

changed, close issue

Summary: Change "...not by modify..." to "...not by modifying..."

resolved, close issue

Summary: Numbered bullet list following this para is formatted poorly. Text items should be alligned and offset from the numbers in a consistent way

resolved, close issue

Summary: Paragraph 1 - editorial: Change the reference to "get_interface" to the appropriate type-face

resolved, close issue

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.

This is fixed by the new DSI text from the Portability FP

Summary: Para 4: editorial Change "..OMG IDL for operation.." to "..OMG IDL for the operation...:.

resolved, close issue

Summary: Change "value(s) values" to "value(s)

resolved, close issue

Summary: Para 0 - editorial: Add a line containing ");" to the PIDL for get_response, to match the PIDL given in section 4.2.

resolved, close issue

Summary: Paragraph 1 - editorial : The leading "c" in create_request is not boldface

resolved, close issue

Summary: There is an extra space between the table reference "Table 21" and the period

resolved, close issue

Summary: Dynamic Invocation Interface is a proper name, and should be capitalized and italicized

resolved, close issue

Summary: Change "This standard system exception" to "The OBJECT_NOT_EXIST exception", to make explicit which exception is being discussed

resolved, close issue

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.

resolved, close issue

Summary: Para 2, editorial: Change "...(as specified by the <member> in its declaration." to "...(as specified by the <member> in its declaration)."

resolved, close issue

Summary: Paragraph 2, editorial: Change " registration of implementations" to "Registration of implementations"

resolved, close issue

Summary: Paragraph 1, editorial: Change "....up the "request." to "....up the request."

resolved, close issue

Summary: Change "Descriptions of the values and exceptions...." to "For descriptions of the values and exceptions..."

resolved, close issue

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

resolved, close issue

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.

resolved, close issue

Summary: How is it possible in IDL to specify a union with an enum discriminator type?

no change necessary, close issue

Summary: What should _is_a() return when invoking it with an input parameter designating CORBA::Object?

closed with revised text

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?

no change to spec., close issue

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?

resolved, close issue

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.

resolved, close issue

Summary: Can a Request pseudo object be invoked multiple times?

resolved, close issue

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.

resolved, close issue

Summary: What does "semantically constrained" mean in section 3.8.2 under the discussion of recursive type specifications.

closed issue, resolved