Common Object Request Broker Architecture Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Common Object Request Broker Architecture — All Issues

  • Acronym: CORBA
  • Issues Count: 71
  • Description: All Issues
Open Closed All
All Issues

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
CORBA34-221 Inconsisten IDL in the Minimum CORBA chapter CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-214 Fixed Types in COM CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-220 CosExternaliazation Service (bug?) CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA25-56 SYNC_WITH_SERVER CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Closed; No Change closed
CORBA25-54 Incorrect example for recursive definitions which can span multiple levels CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA26-74 explicit definition of CCM exceptions mapped from EJB standard exceptions CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.6.1 Resolved closed
CORBA26-73 Incorrect syntax in Components::Enumeration CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.6.1 Resolved closed
CORBA26-72 Component port introspection CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.6.1 Resolved closed
CORBA26-71 "supports" terminology issue for CCM CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.6.1 Resolved closed
CORBA26-70 CCM: Chapter 66 should be removed CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.6.1 Resolved closed
CORBA26-69 IDL out parameters can't map to EJB? CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.6.1 Resolved closed
CORBA26-68 CCM: usage of the MOF profile CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.6.1 Resolved closed
CORBA26-67 CCM : Session2Context naming CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.6.1 Resolved closed
CORBA26-66 CCM : Session2Context and Servants CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.6.1 Resolved closed
CORBA26-92 Incomplete grammar in section 15.3.4.8 CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.6.1 Resolved closed
CORBA26-93 Question about corbaname URL CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.6.1 Resolved closed
CORBA26-91 Indirections with chunking & fragmentation CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.6.1 Resolved closed
CORBA26-90 GIOP issue : fragmented replies with exceptions CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.6.1 Resolved closed
CORBA26-88 GIOP is silent about extra data in the Request or Reply body CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.6.1 Resolved closed
CORBA26-89 In RMI rep Id, when is inclusion of SUID legal? CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.6.1 Resolved closed
CORBA25-51 Incorrect text in 15.4.6.2 CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-50 GIOP 1.1 Fragment problem CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-53 Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-52 Incorrect table in section 15.4 CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-49 tk_indirect CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-46 Fixed point marshalling CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-48 Table 15-2 is missing entry for tk_local_interface CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-47 GIOP 1.2 AddressingDisposition processing on the client side CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-44 Nil return from resolve_initial_references() 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
CORBA25-43 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
CORBA25-40 CORBA 2.4.2 (01-02-01.pdf) 4.2.3.4 shutdown (relevant portion) CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-38 Wither pseudo-objects? 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
CORBA25-35 get_interface() underspecified CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-37 Missing TypeCode identity CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-33 DII create_request 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
CORBA25-31 String literal definition incorrect. CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-32 Ambiguity in non_existent CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-34 Typo in UML for POA 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
CORBA25-28 Missing POAManager identity CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 2.5 Resolved closed
CORBA25-29 Minor code 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
CORBA25-26 Cross-reference refers to wrong section 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
CORBA25-23 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
CORBA25-20 3.7.4 Forward Declaration (for interfaces) doesn't mention local 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
CORBA25-24 Section 10.5.22.2 what happens when conditions not met 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
CORBA25-15 Inconsistent text for unknown system exception 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
CORBA3-128 Creating IORs CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 3.0.3 Resolved closed
CORBA3-127 There is no way to modify a POA's ORT and append to it CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 3.0.3 Resolved closed
CORBA3-126 Interoperability of ObjectReferenceTemplate and Factory. CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 3.0.3 Resolved closed
CORBA3-125 Object Adapter name problem in ORT CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 3.0.3 Resolved closed
CORBA3-35 CORBA components requires new GIOP version? CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-32 Repository ID in nil references CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-34 TypeCodes for custom marshaled valuetypes CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-33 rep_id() operation on Object? CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-30 Interpretation of defined ServiceConfigurationSyntax constants is incomplet CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-28 21.8.1 register_initial_reference CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-31 Note on page 15-43, OBJECT_FORWARD_PERM CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-29 Problem with CSIv2 and GIOP LocateRequest CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-27 X/Open Codeset registry is obsolete needs to be replaced CORBA 2.4.2 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

Inconsisten IDL in the Minimum CORBA chapter

  • Legacy Issue Number: 4216
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: University of California, Irvine ( Carlos O'Ryan)
  • Summary:

    Section 23.14 of the CORBA/IIOP 2.4.1 specification lists the
    complete IDL for a minimumCORBA implementation. However, the text in
    the chapter and the IDL are inconsistent, for example, section 23.4.2
    reads:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ---------------
    The is_a operation is omitted so as not to introduce a requirement
    either for holding

    detailed type information in the object reference or for getting type
    information over

    the wire. Instead, minimumCORBA relies on design time resolution of type
    checking

    issues.

    The non_existent operation is omitted, because of the design philosophy
    of making

    more decisions statically at design time.

    The create_request operation is omitted, as the Dynamic Invocation
    Interface is

    omitted.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Sat, 3 Mar 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — CORBA 3.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Deferred

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

  • Updated: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 19:47 GMT

Fixed Types in COM

  • Legacy Issue Number: 4507
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    There is currently no specification for fixed-point types in the COM/CORBA mapping. I'm interested in getting this changed: how can we proceed? better still, is this work already under way??

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Fri, 17 Aug 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — CORBA 3.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Deferred

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

  • Updated: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 19:47 GMT

CosExternaliazation Service (bug?)

  • Legacy Issue Number: 4188
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Page 2-7 of the CosExternalization Service Specification (April 2000)
    defines the following interfaces:
    CosStream::Node
    CosStream::Role
    CosStream::Relationship

    A CosStream::Node inherits from the CosStream::Streamable interface and
    therefore is a streamable object – it has an external_form_id attribute
    that enables a FactoryFinder to recreate the object using the
    create_uninitialized operation.

    Unfortunately, the CosStream::Role and CosStream::Relationship interfaces do
    not support the CosStream::Streamable interface and therefore are not
    "streamable;" in particular, there is no standard method to obtain a KEY for
    them when it is time to internalize them.

    Perhaps, I am missing something (it wouldn't be the first time , but
    having them support the Streamable interface would certainly make
    implementation much easier. Might I suggest the following:

    interface Role: CosGraphs::Role, CosStream::Streamable

    { ... }
    interface Relationship: CosGraphs::Relationship, CosStream::Streamable { ... }

    at a minimum this would permit the CosStream::Node internalize_node()
    operation and the CosStream::StreamIO read_graph() operation to use a KEY
    value in the FactoryFinder to instantiate the object, before it is
    internalized.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Mon, 5 Feb 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — CORBA 3.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Deferred

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

  • Updated: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 19:47 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

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

explicit definition of CCM exceptions mapped from EJB standard exceptions

  • Key: CORBA26-74
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4540
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Ignacio Silva-Lepe)
  • Summary:

    The CCM exceptions mapped from EJB standard exceptions need to be defined
    explicitly in OMG IDL. The resolution to issue 3182 introduces new CCM
    standard exceptions Components::CreateFailure, Components::FinderFailure
    and Components::RemoveFailure but it does not define them explicitly.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Wed, 29 Aug 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

Incorrect syntax in Components::Enumeration

  • Key: CORBA26-73
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4529
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Ignacio Silva-Lepe)
  • Summary:

    The use of the state keyword in the Components::Enumeration valuetype,
    introduced by issue 3099 and extended in issue 3418, is not correct
    syntactically. Also, anonymous sequences have been deprecated, so the
    definition of the Components::Enumeration state is incorrect in this sense
    as well.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Fri, 13 Jul 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

Component port introspection

  • Key: CORBA26-72
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4412
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    The Components::Navigation interface that is implemented by all
    components provides introspection ("generic navigation") capabilities.
    There are lots of use cases for introspection, so I wonder why there
    is introspection for facets, but not for receptacles or event ports.
    I suggest to add such introspection capabilities. All introspection
    features should be alike as much as possible for ease of usage.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Mon, 16 Jul 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

"supports" terminology issue for CCM

  • Key: CORBA26-71
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4329
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Jon Siegel)
  • Summary:

    . I don't
    think OMG specifications should use a single term in two distinctly
    different ways. The text of the issue starts with the sentence,
    "the Components spec and valuetype spec treat "supports" exactly
    *OPPOSITE* in semantics regarding widening/narrowing." and continues
    for about 3 or 4 paragraphs. Ed's comment should go in there too.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Fri, 18 May 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    rejected

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

CCM: Chapter 66 should be removed

  • Key: CORBA26-70
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4307
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Humboldt-Universitaet ( Martin von Loewis)
  • Summary:

    Looking at ptc/99-10-04, it is not clear to me which parts of this
    document are intended as normative.

    For example, the introduction to chapter 66, "Component Container
    Architecture", states that the presented design "is not the only
    possible design choice." Consequently, it appears that the entire
    chapter 66 is not intended as normative. However, looking at the
    actual text, a reader might be easily confused into taking aspects of
    the design as normative.

    While this text was helpful in the submission to give readers an
    insight how the submitters might design their implementations, it
    should be removed from the specification, to really give implementors
    the freedom of design choice that was apparently intended with the
    submission.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Tue, 15 May 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

IDL out parameters can't map to EJB?

  • Key: CORBA26-69
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4269
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Progress Software ( Alan Conway)
  • Summary:

    Section 8.3.1 says "The signatures of the CORBA component operations are mapped to signatures of EJB remote interface methods following the IDL to Java mapping rules."

    As far as I can see, this only works if the IDL signature has no out or inout parameters. The Holder classes for out and inout parameters cannot be used in an EJB interface signature because they need not be Serializable, which breaks the rules for an RMI compliant class. Even if they could the EJB stubs and skeletons would not implement their special return value behavior without modifications to the EJB spec.

    Someone please tell me I've missed something!

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Thu, 12 Apr 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

CCM: usage of the MOF profile

  • Key: CORBA26-68
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4214
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Humboldt-Universitaet ( Martin von Loewis)
  • Summary:

    The CCM MOF IR draft (ptc/99-10-05) uses UML to denote the MOF model
    of the IR. Without missing elaboration, it is not possible to mentally
    construct the metamodel. For example, the enumeration, primitive, and
    unchangeable stereotypes don't have a well-defined relationship to MOF
    concepts. It seems that the MOF chapter should use the UML MOF profile
    (ad/01-02-29). In addition, it would be desirable if a normative XML
    document that defines the metamodel (following the MOF DTD) is
    provided.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Thu, 1 Mar 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

CCM : Session2Context naming

  • Key: CORBA26-67
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4204
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Is there any reason to name the context interface for extended session
    components as Session2Context in module Components::Extended? Why not simply
    SessionContext like in the Basic module?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Fri, 16 Feb 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

CCM : Session2Context and Servants

  • Key: CORBA26-66
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4203
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    How to activate servants by only using the Session2Context interface from
    the Extended module? It only offers operations to create references like
    create_ref() and create_ref_from_id() similar to those from the POA but no
    means to activate servants are available in the whole container API!

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Fri, 16 Feb 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

Incomplete grammar in section 15.3.4.8

  • Key: CORBA26-92
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4339
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Jishnu Mukerji [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    In orbrev/01-03-01:

    Production rule two at the end of this sections has a comment that it
    should include all IDL types, but in actuality is missing "long long",
    unsigned long long" and "long double".

    Suggest we add these to the production rule in question.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Tue, 5 Jun 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Question about corbaname URL

  • Key: CORBA26-93
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4342
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Craig Rodrigues)
  • Summary:

    I have an interoperability question regarding the
    corbaname URL in the CORBA 2.4.2 specification and would appreciate
    clarification.

    In 13.6.7.3, it states that for a corbaloc URL which
    uses IIOP, if the port number of the endpoint is
    not specified, then the IIOP profile should default
    to port 2809 which is specified by IANA as the corbaloc
    port.
    eg.
    corbaloc:iiop:myhost.com/SomeKey

    In 13.6.7.5, the corbaname URL is described.
    If a corbaname URL is specified for IIOP, but the port
    number is omitted, should the ORB assume that the
    root naming context will be on port 2809 of the host
    specified?

    eg.
    corbaname:iiop:myhost.com:3000#path/obj

    will look for the root naming context on port
    3000 of myhost.com.

    eg.
    corbaname:iiop:myhost.com#path/obj

    Should this look to port 2809 for the root
    naming context?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Fri, 8 Jun 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Indirections with chunking & fragmentation

  • Key: CORBA26-91
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4328
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Everett Anderson)
  • Summary:

    When chunking and fragmenting, it is possible for a chunk length to be
    inserted between the indirection tag and indirection offset.
    Implementations must be careful to compute the indirection offset
    correctly both when writing and reading to avoid errors.

    For interoperability, we should elminate this possibility. From an
    implementation point of view, the code for handling this special case
    should already be there. Please see the original message (see
    attachment) for a detailed description of the problem scenario and two
    implementation possibilities.

    Proposed resolution:

    Elminate the possibility of chunk lengths between indirection tag and
    indirection offset by changing the following paragraph in CORBA formal
    00-11-03 15.3.4.6.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Fri, 25 May 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

GIOP issue : fragmented replies with exceptions

  • Key: CORBA26-90
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4289
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Ram Jeyaraman)
  • Summary:

    Let us assume that the server has sent a few reply fragments. But before sending all the reply
    fragments, an exception occurs (say while marshalling the response).
    What does the server and the client (which has already seen reply fragments) do ?

    Just to note, notice that if the same problem happens while the client is in the midst of sending
    request fragments, the client can choose to send a CancelRequest message to intimate the server.

    Since there are various possible behaviours for the client and server, the GIOP specification needs
    to clarify the standard behaviour, in order for different implementations to remain interoperable.

    One possible behaviour :

    The server could send back a seperate response (containing the exception with
    CompletionStatus.COMPLETED_YES). The client on receipt of the new reply, and noticing the fact that
    another reply with the same requestId is pending, could discard the pending reply and process the
    latest reply.

    Another behaviour :

    The client could simply timeout the request and discard any new reply streams (with the same
    requestId), and raise an exception with CompletionStatus.COMPLETED_MAYBE.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Mon, 30 Apr 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is resolved by the resolution to issue 4273.

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

GIOP is silent about extra data in the Request or Reply body

  • Key: CORBA26-88
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4273
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    The specification does not say whether extra data after the invocation
    parameters in a Request or Reply body is ignored or considered an
    error. For interoperability purposes, the spec should require one or
    the other.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Wed, 18 Apr 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

In RMI rep Id, when is inclusion of SUID legal?

  • Key: CORBA26-89
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4280
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Everett Anderson)
  • Summary:

    In formal 00-11-03 10.6.2 in the discussion of the serial version UID in
    the RMI hashed format, the spec defines the repository ID format as

    RMI: <class name> : <hash code> [ : <serialization version UID> ]

    and says

    "If the actual serialization version UID for the Java class differs from
    the hash code, a colon and the actual serialization version UID
    (transcribed as a 16 digit upper-case hex string) shall be appended to
    the RepositoryId after the hash code."

    The Java to IDL spec ptc-00-01-06 1.3.5.7 says

    "The syntax of the repository ID is the standard OMG RMI Hashed format,
    with an initial “RMI:” followed by the Java class name, followed by a
    hash code string, followed optionally by a serialization version UID
    string."

    Questions:

    1) Is it legal to include the serial version UID in the repository ID
    even when it is equal to the hash code? (Alternatively: Is it legal
    for an ORB to throw an exception/fail if the hash code and serial
    version UID in the repository Id are the same?)

    2) If it is not legal to include the serial Version UID in the
    repository ID when equal to the hash code, what should an ORB do?

    Discussion:

    Other than it not harming anything to include the SUID, there are rare
    cases that the same Java class compiled with different compilers can
    result in different default serial version UIDs, so it would be wise to
    explicitly specify the serialVersionUID field even in the first version
    of a class. If it is legal to always include the serial version UID
    part of the repository ID, ORBs with classes from two different
    compilers would still be able to interoperate.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.6.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

Incorrect text in 15.4.6.2

  • Key: CORBA25-51
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4309
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    15.4.6.2, "LocateReplyBody" says:

    In GIOP version 1.0 and 1.1, Locate reply bodies are marshaled into
    the CDR encapsulation of the containing Message immediately following
    the Reply Header. In GIOP version 1.2, the Reply Body is always
    aligned on an 8-octet boundary. The fact that GIOP specifies the
    maximum alignment for any primitive type is 8 guarantees that
    the ReplyBody will not require remarshaling if the Locate Reply
    Header are modified.

    The final sentence doesn't make sense because the LocateReply header is
    a fixed-length header and therefore can't possibly cause remarshalling.

    I suggest to delete the final sentence of this para.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Wed, 16 May 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    see resolution of Urgent Issue 4314

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

GIOP 1.1 Fragment problem

  • Key: CORBA25-50
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4299
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    There is nothing in the specification that explicitly states whether the
    data in the body of a GIOP 1.1 Fragment message is marshalled relative
    to the Fragment header or relative to the unfragmented message as a
    whole.

    The restriction in GIOP 1.2 that all fragments but the last must have a
    multiple of 8 bytes, and the careful padding of the GIOP 1.2 Fragment
    header to 16 bytes both strongly suggest that GIOP 1.1 fragments should
    be marshalled only relative to the fragment header.

    Proposed Resolution:

    In section 15.4.9, right after the paragraph that reads:

    "A primitive data type of 8 bytes or smaller should never be broken
    across two
    fragments."

    add the following paragraph:

    In GIOP 1.1, the data in a fragment is marshalled with alignment
    relative to its position in the fragment, not relative to its position
    in the whole unfragmented message.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Fri, 11 May 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accept proposal above

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

Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body

  • Key: CORBA25-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4314
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    In CORBA 2.3, a GIOP 1.2 LocateReply message made no requirements as to
    the alignment of the LocateReply body. This meant that the LocateReply
    body needed to be aligned only on a 4-byte boundary. With the resolution
    for issue 2521, published with CORBA 2.4, the spec was changed to require
    alignment of the LocateReply body on an 8-byte boundary.

    The change is incompatible with the CORBA 2.3 definition because the receiver
    must know where to look for the ReplyBody in the the byte stream following
    the message header. (The LocateReply header is 12 bytes long, so changing
    the alignment rules means that the LocateReply body has to start at offset 12
    for CORBA 2.3, but has to start at offset 16 for CORBA 2.4.)

    The change in alignment did not result in a version change of GIOP,
    despite the incompatibility, so it appears that the change is simply illegal.

    There are already deployed products that use the CORBA 2.3 alignment
    rule; therefore, we cannot deploy a CORBA 2.4 compliant product without
    breaking interoperability with already deployed CORBA 2.3 compliant products.

    So, I'd like to request that we back out the change and continue to
    permit a LocateReply body to be aligned on a 4-byte boundary. There was
    never any need to change the alignment of the LocateReply body anyway because
    a LocateReply header has fixed length and, therefore, cannot ever cause
    remarshaling of the body due to a size change in the header. In other
    words, the motivation quoted in the spec for the 8-byte alignment rule
    isn't founded on fact, and the change should never have been made in the first
    place. (See issue 4309 for details.)

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Thu, 17 May 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Incorrect table in section 15.4

  • Key: CORBA25-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4311
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    The table on page 15-31 (Table 15-3 "GIOP Message Types and Originators")
    is in error. For CloseConnection, it shows that only the server can
    send this message but, in GIOP 1.2, either client or server can send
    the message, as detailed in 15.5.1 and 15.4.7.

    Also. in 15.4.7, we have:

    In GIOP version 1.2 both sides of the connection may send
    the CloseConnection message.

    That should be "must", not "may".

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Thu, 17 May 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

tk_indirect

  • Key: CORBA25-49
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4294
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: hursley.ibm.com ( Simon Nash)
  • Summary:

    I don't understand why tk_indirect isn't allowed as a top-level typecode.
    This causes servere performance penalties for RMI-IIOP because the Java to IDL
    mapping requires that Java objects of declared type java.lang.Object are
    marshalled as CORBA anys. In the case of a Vector or HashTable with 100
    elements, this means that 100 anys must be marshalled. If all of these are
    of actual type foo, the restriction on tk_indirect means that all 100 of
    these data values must repeat the typeCode for foo, which could be very large.
    This causes very substantial overheads, since the space and time needed to
    marshal the TypeCode for foo can greatly exceed that needed to marshal the
    data for foo.

    I understand why a nested tk_indirect cannot refer to any TypeCode outside
    the scope of its enclosing top-level TypeCode. However, I don't think this
    restriction needs to apply to a top-level TypeCode. We have made this
    change experimentally without any adverse effects and we have discovered that
    using tk_indirect for all the top-level foo TypeCodes after the first one can
    speed up some common scenarios by at least a factor of 5 on end-to-end
    measurements. There seems to be no downside to making this change.

    I would therefore like to propose the following change to the section headed
    "Indirection: Recursive and Repeated TypeCodes" within section 15.3.5.1:

    Change the first bullet from:

    The indirection applies only to TypeCodes nested within some “top-level”
    TypeCode. Indirected TypeCodes are not “freestanding,” but only exist inside
    some other encoded TypeCode.

    by the following words:

    The indirection applies only to TypeCodes nested within some “top-level”
    TypeCode, or from one top-level TypeCode to another. Indirected TypeCodes
    nested within a top-level TypeCode can only reference TypeCodes that are part
    of the same top-level TypeCode, including the top-level TypeCode itself.
    Indirected top-level TypeCodes can reference other top-level TypeCodes but
    cannot reference TypeCodes nested within some other top-level TypeCode.

    If this change finds favour, then we need to work out how it can be brought
    into GIOP without causing problems interoperating with older ORBs that insist
    on the stronger restriction of the current spec. This could perhaps be
    added to the "wish list" for GIOP 1.3.

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

    Close this issue and add it to the GIOP wish list

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

Fixed point marshalling

  • Key: CORBA25-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4198
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: AT&T ( Duncan Grisby)
  • Summary:

    I have a query about the intended marshalling format for Fixed. Is the
    sending ORB always required to transmit the number of digits specified
    in the IDL, or is it permitted to transmit fewer if there are leading
    zeros?

    Consider transmitting 123.45 as fixed<6,2>. Is the ORB permitted to
    transmit

    12 34 5c

    or must it send the leading zero (plus another zero to pad the first
    octet):

    00 12 34 5c

    In both cases, the receiving ORB knows it is expecting a scale of 2,
    and the sign half-octet tells it where the digits end, so it can
    correctly unmarshal the value as 123.45.

    The discussion of issue 3431 suggests that the first option is not
    permitted, and leading zeros must always be sent. However, the 2.4
    GIOP spec makes no mention of how many digits should be sent. The
    specification should be clarified to either explicitly permit or
    explicitly forbid stripping of leading zeros.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Wed, 7 Feb 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close with clarification revision

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

Table 15-2 is missing entry for tk_local_interface

  • Key: CORBA25-48
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4242
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Yvonne Biggar)
  • Summary:

    Add the missing entry with the same information as tk_objref.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Tue, 27 Mar 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    add the missing table entry with the same information as tk_objref

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

GIOP 1.2 AddressingDisposition processing on the client side

  • Key: CORBA25-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4213
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Ram Jeyaraman)
  • Summary:

    If the server ORB sends back a NEEDS_ADDRESSING_MODE reply to the client indicating the prefered
    addressing disposition, then is the client ORB required to 'cache' the prefered addressing
    disposition per object reference, and use it for further requests to the server ?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Wed, 28 Feb 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    to close without revision

  • 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating IORs

  • Key: CORBA3-128
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4478
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Borland Software Corporation ( Vijaykumar Natarajan)
  • Summary:

    > // ulgy conversion to objectref: we should think about
    > // creating utilities for IOR<->objref conversion

    I meant to raise that second issue (the ugly IOR to ObjRef conversion).
    It is too painful and I think we should address it. I can think of a few
    possible solutions.

    1. have make object just return profiles, so the ORB can do the
    conversion internally.
    2. Add a method on the ORT to provide this functionality
    3. Add a separate CODEC interface to manufacture IORs from Profiles
    (IORFactory, rir etc)

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Tue, 14 Aug 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Undo the resolution of issue 4476 and close 4478 no change

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

There is no way to modify a POA's ORT and append to it

  • Key: CORBA3-127
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4476
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Borland Software Corporation ( Vijaykumar Natarajan)
  • Summary:

    If I wish to register an ORF (ObjectReferenceFactory) as the current
    factory, there is no way for it to append to the current template. In
    other words, an updated factory can only replace the original but not
    say add another profile to the one the given POA would generate w/ the
    adapter template.

    As an inverse, there is no way for a POA to require or even request an
    ORF to include profiles that it deems fit.

    Proposal:

    Add a parameter to make_object

    Object make_object( in string repositoryId, in ObjectId id,
    ObjectReferenceTemplate template);

    Add the following methods to ObjectReferenceTemplate

    abstract valuetype ObjectReferenceTemplate : ObjectReferenceFactory

    { readonly attribute ServerId server_id ; readonly attribute ORBId orb_id ; readonly attribute AdapterName adapter_name; ProfileSeq getProfiles(in string repositoryId, in ObjectId id); ComponentSeq getComponents(in IOP::ProfileId profile_id); }

    ;

    where ProfileSeq is defined as

    module IOP

    { typedef sequence <TaggedProfile> ProfileSeq; typedef sequence <TaggedComponent> ComponentSeq; }

    Add the following sections:

    21.5.3.8 getProfiles

    This returns the set of profiles that the POA would have generated using
    its default template. This can optionally be included in the generated
    IOR.
    [ED: This is independent of make_object, because make_object returns an
    object reference from which profiles would have to be extracted for
    inclusion]

    21.5.3.9 getComponents
    This returns set of components that would have been include in the
    profile with the id profile_id and allows the factory to choose to
    include those in the profiles that it generates.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Sun, 12 Aug 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Interoperability of ObjectReferenceTemplate and Factory.

  • Key: CORBA3-126
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4445
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Borland Software Corporation ( Vijaykumar Natarajan)
  • Summary:

    Nothing in the specs (I think the submission does say this somewhere)
    say that the valuetypes defined in this spec and implemented by the ORB
    vendor are not expected to be transmitted across different ORB
    implementations.

    Proposal:

    Add paragraph to 51.5.3.1:

    Concrete definitions and implementations of ObjectReferenceTemplate and
    ObjectReferenceFactory are ORB implementation specific and are not
    defined as they are not expected to be exchanged between ORB
    implementations.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Thu, 2 Aug 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add a clarification to the specification

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

Object Adapter name problem in ORT

  • Key: CORBA3-125
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4440
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Ken Cavanaugh)
  • Summary:

    The adopted specification for the Object Reference Template is
    ptc/01-04-03. This specification introduces adapter names for
    object adapters. Adapter names are needed in the definition of the
    ObjectReferenceTemplate abstract valuetype. An AdapterName is
    simply a sequence of strings that is used to identify an
    instance of an object adapter.

    In the case of the POA, the spec defines the AdapterName as follows
    in section 21.5.2.1:

    In the case of the POA, the adapter name shall be the sequence
    of names starting with the root POA that is required to reach
    the POA using the find_POA call. The name of the root POA is
    the empty sequence.

    Also, in section 21.3.14.6:

    The adapter_name attribute defines a name for the object adapter that
    services requestws for the invoked object. In the case of the POA,
    the adapter_name is the sequence of names from the root PAO to the POA
    that services the request. The root POA is not named in this sequence.

    The problem here is that the POA occupies the entire name space of
    possible adapter names, so an ORB that supports other proprietary
    object adapters cannot unambiguously identify instances of other
    object adapter through ServerRequestInfo.adapter_name.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Mon, 30 Jul 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Update the specification so that the Object Adapter ID of the root POA is

    { "RootPOA" }
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

CORBA components requires new GIOP version?

  • Key: CORBA3-35
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4536
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Everett Anderson)
  • Summary:

    Please forgive me if this is old news. I was trying to find a recent
    CORBA Components spec to see what changes it has had on the core spec.

    It looks like several new TypeCode kinds have been added (two from
    CCM?), but doesn't that require a new GIOP version? Even if the specs
    did declare the wire formats in new versions of Chapter 15, how could
    older GIOP 1.2 ORBs handle them?

    Specs:

    CCM FTF drafts of modified CORBA Core chapters
    Adds tk_component and tk_home in 10.7.1. No update to 15.
    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/99-10-03

    CORBA 2.4.2 complete specification
    Adds tk_local_interface in 10.7.1. No update to 15.
    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/01-02-01

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Mon, 27 Aug 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    close no change, see above

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

Repository ID in nil references

  • Key: CORBA3-32
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4334
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    on page 13-17, the spec says:

    A Null TypeID is the only mechanism that can be used to represent
    the type CORBA::Object.

    This is in conflict with the information provided on page 15-28:

    When a reference to a base Object is encoded, there are two allowed
    encodings for the Repository ID: either "IDL:omg.org/CORBA/Object:1.0"
    or "" may be used.

    I would suggest to strike the sentence on page 13-17 because that is a
    historical hangover.

    Also, the entire section talks about "type IDs", when what it really means
    are "repository IDs". I would suggest to hunt down all uses of "type ID"
    and to replace them with "repository ID", because that's the correct
    terminology.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Tue, 5 Jun 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above Close no change

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

TypeCodes for custom marshaled valuetypes

  • Key: CORBA3-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4506
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Everett Anderson)
  • Summary:

    It is underspecified what value member information for custom
    marshaled valuetypes an ORB must provide.

    Users of custom marshaled valuetypes must provide their own marshaling
    code, and the ORB has no way of knowing what it does before executing
    it.

    This comes into play for custom marshaled valuetypes inside of Anys,
    as well as the ValueMemberSeq in the FullValueDescription of a custom
    marshaled valuetype.

    In both cases, one can query whether or not the valuetype is custom
    marshaled. With Anys, the TypeCode has a ValueModifier type_modifier
    which is set to VM_CUSTOM. The FullValueDescription includes a
    boolean is_custom.

    I can see two possible solutions:

    1. TypeCodes for custom marshaled valuetypes will encode no value
    member information, so the member_count will be 0. The
    FullValueDescription will have a zero length sequence for the
    ValueMemberSeq members.

    or

    2. Value member information for the TypeCode or FullValueDescription
    for a custom marshaled valuetype is the state defined in the
    valuetype's IDL in the same way as if it were not custom marshaled.

    I propose #1 as the solution. This member information is only useful
    for finding out what is encoded, and solution #2 doesn't provide
    that. Plus, it can be very expensive to create and transmit if many
    repository IDs are involved.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Thu, 16 Aug 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

rep_id() operation on Object?

  • Key: CORBA3-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4337
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    I'm seeing more and more questions along the lines of:

    "How can I get the repository ID of an object, given its reference?"

    The standard answer is to call get_interface() and to then grope around
    in the IFR. However, that's cumbersome, and the IFR may well not be
    populated or running.

    So, why is it that there is no way to get the repository ID from the target
    object directly? I would think that adding something like the following
    to CORBA::Object would work nicely:

    interface Object

    { // ... string rep_id(); }

    ;

    As far as the implementation is concerned, it would be trivial. We'd have
    another "_rep_id" operation name in IIOP (similar to "_get_interface" and
    "_non_existent"). On the server side, the implementation would simply
    return the repository ID of the servant (the result of _primary_interface()
    in the C++ mapping).

    Yes, I know, we'd have to rev IIOP (which we are due to do some time
    soon anyway, so we might as well add this at the same time).

    Apart from the IIOP issue, I'd be interested in hearing what other people
    think of this idea. Any glitches with it?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Tue, 5 Jun 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Interpretation of defined ServiceConfigurationSyntax constants is incomplet

  • Key: CORBA3-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4321
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adiron, LLC ( Polar Humenn)
  • Summary:

    If the ServiceConfigurationSyntax identifier is a 0, the specification
    says that the contents of the associated ServiceConfiguration is an ANS.1
    Encoded version of a GeneralNames construct.

    It is not specified what a conforming client implementation does when it
    encounters this type of privilege authority. What is the conforming
    behavior of a client?

    If there is no conforming behavior, I believe the definition of
    CSIIOP:SCS_GeneralNames should be removed from the specification, as there
    is nothing "interoperable" about it, and this specification is an
    interoperability specification.

    As a remedy to this situation we should probably use a resolution of the
    VMCID solution sought after in issue 4268, and let that Vendor specify it
    in their specification (i.e. does EJB have a use for this?), when there is
    a specification for it.

    The ServiceConfigurationSyntax identifier of 1 specifies that the
    ServiceConfiguration is a GSSExported name.

    This one has a bit more use than 0, as the contents of a GSS exported name
    construct can imply a lot, such as the protocol, the format of the token,
    and a specification of where to get the authorization token.

    So, the specification should state the specific OIDs that are understood
    by a conforming CSS, and where to find the specification of the conforming
    behavior of each OID.

    Obviously there are no OID specified (yet), but there might be in the
    future. It would be nice to know where to look, or otherwise remove the
    definition of SCS_GSSExportedName from the specification.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Thu, 24 May 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    close no change

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

21.8.1 register_initial_reference

  • Key: CORBA3-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4284
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SeeBeyond Technology Corp. ( Tom Urquhart)
  • Summary:

    21.8.1 register_initial_reference

    An operation is available in the ORB interface:
    void register_initial_reference (in ObjectId id, in Object obj) raises
    (InvalidName);
    If this operation is called with an id, Y , and an object, YY, then a
    subsequent call to ORB::resolve_initial_references ( Y ) will return object
    YY.
    InvalidName is raised if:
    " this operation is called with an empty string id;
    or
    " this operation is called with an id that is already registered, including
    the default names defined by OMG.
    What we think this means is that it would be impossible to register (and
    resolve) ORB vendor external implementations of, for example, CORBA
    Services, such as Naming, Trading, Notification, etc. as they are some of
    the "default names".

    Could you please amend the second "or" clause to something like:
    or
    " this operation is called with an id that is already registered, including
    the default LOCALLY CONSTRAINED names defined by OMG, where 'LOCALLY
    CONSTRAINED' would not then apply to any predefined CORBA Service names
    such as NameService, NotificationService, etc.
    Many thanks and apologies if you've already addressed this.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Wed, 25 Apr 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Note on page 15-43, OBJECT_FORWARD_PERM

  • Key: CORBA3-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4324
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    On page 15-43, we have a note:

    Note--Usage of OBJECT_FORWARD_PERM is now deprecated, due to problems it
    causes with the semantics of the Object::hash operation.
    OBJECT_FORWARD_PERM features could be removed from some future GIOP
    versions if solutions to these problems are not provided.

    This seems to be in conflict with the decision to retain permanent forwarding
    for FT ORBs. The note needs to be either deleted or updated to reflect
    the real state of affairs.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Tue, 29 May 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Good catch. The note is simply wrong and should be removed

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

Problem with CSIv2 and GIOP LocateRequest

  • Key: CORBA3-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4290
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    CSIv2 uses GIOP ServiceContexts to associate a security context with a
    given GIOP message, but the GIOP LocateRequest & LocateReply messages to
    not have a ServiceContext field to carry the CSIv2 security context
    information. Thus, it is impossible to use LocateReuest & LocateReply
    when using CSIv2.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Fri, 20 Apr 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

X/Open Codeset registry is obsolete needs to be replaced

  • Key: CORBA3-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4236
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    13.9.1 refers to the X/Open (nee OSF) Codeset registry. This registry
    is obsolete and no longer maintained. We should replace it with the
    IANA codeset registry instead and grandfather the old values for a
    transition period.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4.2 — Mon, 26 Mar 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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