Common Object Request Broker Architecture Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Common Object Request Broker Architecture — All Issues

  • Acronym: CORBA
  • Issues Count: 230
  • Description: All Issues
Open Closed All
All Issues

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
CORBA34-210 Section 22.2.4.6 interface RelativeRoundtripTimeoutPolicy CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-211 valuetypes and local interfaces CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-205 Spec doesn't make clear what is valid mix of policies and what is invalid CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-204 Messaging Routing Protocol is broken for GIOP 1.0 & 1.1 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-207 How does DynValue handle derived valuetypes? CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-203 What is the RSC when using a PersistentPoller CORBA 3.0.1 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-206 messaging router issue CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-212 Section: 15.4.5.1 struct has to be updated CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-198 BNF changes CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-200 Problem with ServerRequestInterceptor::receive_request and DSI CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-199 rules for marshalling ValueBoxes CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-201 restriction of where a valuetype chunk can end CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-202 Bad text in 22.6 mandates Routing for sendc/sendp CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-194 methods on the POA CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-195 Codec Interface Deficiencies CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-209 CORBA 3.02, page 11-25, section 11.3.6 CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-208 module SendingContext CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-196 An extension of IOR to protect target objects Nature CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-197 Mapping from -ORBxxx to Java properties does not work for -ORBInitRef CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-173 processing TaggedComponents within an IOR CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-169 Make anonymous types illegal CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-168 interface ORB should be local CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-155 Section: 21.3.13 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-185 Code Set Conversion on Operations CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-187 Section: 4.3.13 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-186 Appendix A CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-188 CORBA 3.0.3 ch. 3.4 OMG IDL Grammar CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-189 The POA state inactive is not used consistent. CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-191 argument of the set_servant call has a small typo CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-192 change in the POAManager CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-193 Add a typedef for the POAManager id CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-158 add interface ORB { Object string_to_object ( in wstring str ); }; CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-159 add CORBA::ORB::arg_list CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-160 Section 13.7 ServiceContext CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-162 Section: 4.8.1 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-161 Section: 21.7.3 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-163 move struct to IOP module CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-152 Proposal to change PortableInterceptor::ReplyStatus to a real enum CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-150 Third line of 23.1.3.4, ACTIVE must be bold CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-151 Proposal to change PortableInterceptor::AdapterState to a real enum CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-153 Section: 15.4.2/16.4.1 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-154 Section: 13.6.10.1 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-146 struct PolicyValue CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-119 Section: 21.3.14.11 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-120 Section: 4.5.2 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-130 Section: 21.4.3.1 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-133 update the spec to not used anonymous types CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-132 Section: 21.7 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-134 Section: 4.2 (02) CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-137 Section: 7.4 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-135 Section: 4.2 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-131 Section: 21.9.1 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-136 Section: 13.6.2 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-138 Typo in sections 22.10.1.1 and 22.10.1.2 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-139 Minor code ambiguity CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-140 Moving *Seq typedefs into ORB chapter CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-110 69.8.2.8 The simple Element, page 69-538 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-124 FullInterfaceDescription and base_interfaces question CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-122 CORBA Exceptions CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-121 Allowing mutual recursion for IDL structs - clarification needed CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-123 Section: 11.3.9.16 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-127 Section: 22.11.1 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-126 Page: 21-43 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-128 Section: 22.16/ CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-129 Section: 11.3.9 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-112 Section: Chapter 11 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-111 Section: Chapter 9, Chapter 5 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-113 Allowing Mutual Recursion for IDL Structures CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-117 Page: 21-5 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-118 Section: Appendix A CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-116 Page: 9-1 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-115 Page: 7-7 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-114 NVList Section: 7.5 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-99 69.3.2.14 The idl Element, page 69-478 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-97 69.3.2.2 The author Element, page 69-474 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-98 Descriptor CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-101 69.3.2.15 The implementation Element, pages 69-478/479 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-100 69.3.2.25 The propertyfile Element, page 69-482 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-102 69.8.2.7 The code Element, pages 69-474 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-103 69.3.2.15 The implementation Element, pages 69-478/479 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-104 69.3 Software Package Descriptor CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-105 Add the capability to define a component artifact property CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-106 Test Property - add a test property definition to the properties DTD CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-107 69.8.2.9 The sequence Element CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-109 69.8.2.7 The range Element, pages 69-537/538 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-108 69.8.2.3 The choices Element, page 69-537 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-92 lwCCM issues - persistence CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-93 lwCCM issues - security CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-91 lwCCM issues - entity components CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-94 lwCCM issues - transaction CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-95 LWCCM issue - Section 1.5.3 Exclusion CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-71 Checking XML DTD elements related to the trader service CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-72 Description for the impltype Element? CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-73 69.3 AssemblyFactory Interface CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-96 Component Artifact Dependency CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-75 Device Artifact Dependency CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-74 Uses Relationships CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-80 lwCCM issues - proxy homes CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-78 lwCCM issues - invalid rows CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-76 Dependency on D+C FTF CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-79 lwCCM issues - home finders and finder operations CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-77 lwCCM issues - Entity2Context CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-82 lwCCM issues - Section 4.1 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-83 lwCCM issues - primary key CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-81 lwCCM issues - configurators CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-87 lwCCM issues - CIDL CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-86 lwCCM issues - locator CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-85 lwCCM issues - segmentation CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-89 lwCCM issues - abstract storage type CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-90 lwCCM issues - section 4.1.2 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-84 lwCCM issues - get_all_facet, ... CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-88 lwCCM issues - abstract storage home CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-56 'local executor mapping' CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-59 Section 6.4.5.26 and Section 6.4.5.30 should be moved to section 6.3 CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-58 issue on component supporting abstract interfaces CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-57 CCM Spec: attributes are listed in the ports section? CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-60 Section 6.4.5.10 (page 6-26) CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-61 Section 6.4.5.52 (page 6-38) CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-64 multiple lifetime policies declaration issue CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-62 CCM spec: insufficient examples of component attributes CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-67 Issue on the description of the consumesidentifier element CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-68 A new exception specification is needed for CCM2Context::req_passivate() CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-66 Derived component supported interface restriction (formal/2002-06-65) CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-65 CCM IDL style inconsistency CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-69 [CCM] Interface Repository Metamodel CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-70 Using Configurator on CCMHome or any CORBA objects? CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-44 Contradictory sections in the CCM and Lightweight CCM specifications CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-45 "supports" keyword CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-47 HomeExecutorBase should have a set_context method CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-46 add some feature to let an assembly look like a monolithic compoment CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-49 Generic connectivity for Receptacles, Emitters, Publishers CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-52 The association of entity component primary key and PSS key is unclear CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-48 EnterpriseComponent should have a set_persistent_object method CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-51 EnterpriseComponent should have a get_servant method CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-50 HomeExecutorBase should have a get_servant method CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-53 HomeExecutorBase should have a get_servant method CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-55 portability of CCM descriptors CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-43 The D&C IDL part doesn't match 06-04-02. CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-31 CCMHome should have a get_components method CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-32 CCMHome should have a get_container method CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-30 Session2Context interface CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-27 Generic port connections CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-29 HomeConfigurator should not extend CCMHome CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-28 LwCCM issue - Section 1.6.8 Exclusion CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-26 LwCCM issue - Section 1.4.3.3 Exclusion CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-25 Interface Introspection CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-21 context interface for home implementation CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-22 GIOP Conformance and Interceptors CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-17 Chapter/section: 15.4.2.2 "Request Body" CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-24 CodeSet and CSIv2 Negotitaion CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-23 Change new GIOP Negotiate Session Message to Firewall Specific CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-15 15.3.3 - codesets must be "explicitly defined" CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-13 valuetype fragmentation ambiguous CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-14 Clarification on multi-threaded codeset negotiation CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-16 [Components] Contradiction between IDL and Interface Repository concerning CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-19 page 1-20 and page 1-21 - editorial CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-18 page 1-20 second bullet of the description of the disconnect operation CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA34-20 page 1-20 the description of the get_connection operation CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.4 Deferred closed
CORBA31-112 Section: 15.4.5.1 struct has to be updated CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.1 Deferred closed
CORBA31-216 Sections 8.1.1, 8.2.1: CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA31-213 - Figure 2 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA31-212 Section 7.1, line1: CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA31-211 Figure 1 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA31-215 Section 8.1.1 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA31-214 7.2, sentence 3 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA31-210 use the proper notation for expressing Profiles CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA31-209 Minor comments re Components FTF CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA31-208 Section 7.2 CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA31-207 On Page 18 - Figure 11 Home mapping CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA31-206 Section 7, Overview CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA31-205 sections 1, 3, 4, 5 essentially empty CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA3-133 insufficient examples of component attributes CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.0.3 Duplicate or Merged closed
CORBA3-132 Derived component supported interface restriction CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.1 Resolved closed
CORBA31-204 Section: exceptions CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.1 Closed; No Change closed
CORBA31-203 Codec Interface Deficiencies CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.1 Duplicate or Merged closed
CORBA3-131 Error in Chapter 21 of CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.0.3 Resolved closed
CORBA3-130 Wrong minor code listed in POAManager::deactivate CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.1 Resolved closed
CORBA31-111 Make a typedef for the POA id new CORBA 3.0.3 CORBA 3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA31-110 ValueMembersSeq CORBA 3.0.2 CORBA 3.1 Resolved closed
CORBA3-122 Editorial issues in formal/02-06-65 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-121 Corrections in XML DTDs for packaging CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-120 Remove section 4.4.1.4 in formal/02-06-65 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-123 Update Table 5-13 in the EJB Chapter of formal/02-06-65 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-119 create operation of AssemblyFactory interface CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-118 69.8.2 Property File XML Elements CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-117 Typo (??) in chapter 61 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-115 paragraph 60.2.1 : There is two mistakes in keywords CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-116 Productions 140, 141, 142 and 143 must be removed CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-114 CIDL Grammar problems: Productions must be renumbered : 134 -> 1, ... CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-112 Issues related to CCM's XML descriptors: chapter 69.7.2.38 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-110 Issues related to CCM's XML descriptors: chapter 69.4.5.16 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-111 Issues related to CCM's XML descriptors: chapter 69.7.2.25 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-113 Issues related to CCM's XML descriptors: chapter 695.4 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-109 Issues related to CCM's XML descriptors: chapter 69.4.4 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-108 simple type element of the property file issue CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-107 Issue regarding language mapping for keyless homes CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-101 What ORBInitInfo operations are legal during pre_init() and post_init()? CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Duplicate or Merged closed
CORBA3-100 AMI vs abstract & local interfaces CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-97 Type code creation CORBA 3.0.1 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-94 CORBA::WrongTransaction and Interceptors CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-96 Unfortunate CDR Encapsulation of ASN.1 Encodings CORBA 3.0.1 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-95 add a ClientInterceptor then create_POA() in the post_init() method? CORBA 3.0.1 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-93 How do Portable Interceptors interact with Messaging callbacks CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-91 ORBInitInfo::arguments() underspecified CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-90 Exception handling in Interceptor initialization CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-92 What ORBInitInfo operations are legal during pre_init() and post_init()? CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-86 Pollable in more than one PollableSet? CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-88 Local types allowed as valuetype state? CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-87 Why does PollableSet::number_left() return unsigned short? CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-89 Derived component supported interface restriction (formal/2002-06-01) CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-84 DII sendc reply delivery underspecified CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-85 Oneway operations should not generate sendc_ and sendp_ variants CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-81 name disambiguation for AMI interface & poller names is confusing CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-83 Bad example code in 22.11.4.3 CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-80 potential name clash with Messaging type-specific poller timeout argument CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-77 Messaging: bad example code for type specific poller CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-79 Messaging type-specific poller valuetypes should be abstract CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-78 Errors in definition of Messaging poller types CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-76 SyncScope for oneway invocations CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-74 determining TimeT or UtcT value CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-73 Is a router allowed to pick any value in the range for a priority? CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-75 Messaging time based policy enforcement? CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-71 Object::validate_connection() CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-72 Who is responsible for generating the TIMEOUT exception CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-70 Sloppy text in CORBA 3.0, 4.3.8.1 get_policy CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-68 Inconsistent definition of semantics of RebindPolicy? CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-69 Object::get_client_policy problem CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-67 BAD_INV_ORDER minor code 5 and 10 mean the same thing? CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-66 Serious backward compatibility issue in the PI CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed
CORBA3-65 OpaqueValue/add_arg never mapped to languages CORBA 3.0 CORBA 3.0.2 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

Section 22.2.4.6 interface RelativeRoundtripTimeoutPolicy

  • Legacy Issue Number: 6424
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Borland Software Corporation ( Wolfgang Haefelinger)
  • Summary:

    [..] It is used to indicate the relative amount
    of time for which a Request or its corresponding
    Reply may be delivered. After this amount of
    time, the Request is cancelled (if a response
    has not yet been received from the target) or
    the Reply is discarded (if the Request had
    already been delivered and a Reply returned from
    the target) [..]
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Question:

    • What is the precise meaning of "Request is
      cancelled"?

    Does it mean that client ORB just gives up or
    does it mean that client tries, in kind of best
    effort semantics, to cancel request on server?

    If this cancellation fails, how will client user
    be informed about this? By a minor code in
    thrown Timeout exception?

    Is it possible to clarify this?

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Wed, 29 Oct 2003 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

valuetypes and local interfaces

  • Legacy Issue Number: 6318
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Progress Software ( Steve Vinoski)
  • Summary:

    The spec appears silent as to whether valuetypes are allowed to support local interfaces. Table 3-10, for example, says nothing at all about local interfaces.

    There's a couple ways to look at this. First, valuetypes are not CORBA objects. Servants for local interfaces are direct CORBA object instances, i.e., the "local" declaration on an interface effectively removes the distinction between a CORBA object and its servant. If a valuetype were used as a servant for a local object, then the valuetype would itself also be a CORBA object. By this analysis, valuetypes should not be allowed to support local interfaces.

    Another way to look at it is that the valuetype should just inherit the local interface's operations and attributes without having any subtype/subclass relationship with the base local interface. This would be a rather pointless approach to take, is there would be no possibility of using the valuetype polymorphically with respect to the base local interface.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Thu, 16 Oct 2003 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

Spec doesn't make clear what is valid mix of policies and what is invalid

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5624
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    The spec doesn't make it clear what is a valid mix of policies and what
    is invalid. For example, should it be legal to set a
    RequestPriorityPolicy, MaxHopsPolicy or QueueOrderingPolicy value if the
    RoutingPolicy is ROUTE_NONE?

    Also, should setting both RequestEndTimePolicy and
    RelativeRequestTimeoutPolicy be illegal? Or must the client/server pick
    which ever one expires first?

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Sun, 1 Sep 2002 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

Messaging Routing Protocol is broken for GIOP 1.0 & 1.1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5662
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    It is impossible to use the routing protocol to communicate with servers
    that only support GIOP 1.0 or 1.1, because the information contained in
    struct MessageBody does not contain enough information to determine the
    alignment requirements of the contents of body member. The GIOP 1.0 &
    1.1 RequestHeader struct contain an octet sequence for principle as the
    last member, and specify no alignment requirements for the message
    body. Thus, it is impossible for the final router to determine the
    proper alignment for the message body when marshalling a GIOP Request
    message for delivery to the target object.

    The same problem applies to the Response message.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Thu, 26 Sep 2002 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

How does DynValue handle derived valuetypes?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5467
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    I just noticed that the description of DynValue is totally silent on the
    issue of derived valuetypes.

    Here's an example to set things up:

    // IDL

    valuetype A

    { public short s; }

    ;

    valuetype B

    { public long l; }

    ;

    struct S

    { A an_a; }

    ;

    // C++

    DynamicAny::DynFactory df = ...;
    B *b = ...;
    S my_s;
    CORBA::Any my_any;

    s.an_a = b;
    my_any <<= s;

    DynamicAny::DynAny_var da = df->create_dyn_any(my_any);
    DynamicAny::DynStruct_var ds = DynamicAny::DynStruct::_narrow(da);

    ds->seek(0);
    da = ds->current_component();

    DynamicAny::DynValue_var dv = DynamicAny::DynValue::_narrow(da);
    CORBA::TypeCode_var tc = dv->type();

    cout << tc->id() << endl;

    -----------

    Now some questions:

    1. What is printed by the above C++ code? "IDL:A:1.0" or "IDL:B:1.0"?

    2. If the typecode is for valuetype A, what happens to the members
    defined in valuetype B? Seems they must be inaccessable yet still
    recoverable if I convert the DynValue back to an any and extract the
    value, because I can't truncate a B to an A.

    3. If the typecode is for valuetype B, we now have the interesting case
    where:

    tc->equivalent(ds->type()->member_type(0))

    is false. Is this going to confuse programmers or programs? I think it
    will, since it means that if I try to insert dv into another DynStruct
    via assign() or the like, it will fail, since the TypeCodes are no
    longer equivalent.

    4. Do the answers change if B is truncatable and the program can find
    the TypeCode for B (perhaps via SendingContextRunTime)? How about if it
    can't find the TypeCode?

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Tue, 16 Jul 2002 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

What is the RSC when using a PersistentPoller

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5781
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    What is the RSC when
    > using a PersistentPoller? Since it is a valuetype that can be passed
    > from one process to another, the RSC obviously can't be the same in the
    > other process as at the original invocation point.
    >
    > Anybody have any bright ideas for this one? Should it be empty? A copy
    > of the TSC at the poll point? Change MessageRouting:PersistentRequest
    > to have an attribute that provides access to a copy of the RSC, and
    > PersistentRequestRouter::create_persistent_request to have the RSC as an
    > "in" argument?

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.1 — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 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

messaging router issue

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5621
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    What is a messaging router supposed to do if it receives multiple
    requests from a client with more than one type of QueueOrderingPolicy
    value? (Is this legal? Is it legal to have more than one QueueOrdering
    bit set in a single request?) How can it sort on priority, FIFO, and
    deadline simultaneously?

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Sun, 1 Sep 2002 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

Section: 15.4.5.1 struct has to be updated

  • Legacy Issue Number: 12858
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    this section says: // GIOP 1.0 struct LocateRequestHeader_1_0

    { // Renamed LocationRequestHeader unsigned long request_id; sequence <octet> object_key; }

    ; Anonymous types are deprecated so this struct has to be updated

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 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

BNF changes

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5952
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Jishnu Mukerji [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    BTW I think the twiddle is incomplete because it is not reflected
    in the BNF for Identifier. I think it is better if the BNF always
    reflects the ultimate specification of a language's lexical
    definition. Otherwise compiler writers are apt to miss the
    subtleties.
    I'll propose some BNF changes if others agree

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Wed, 25 Jun 2003 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

Problem with ServerRequestInterceptor::receive_request and DSI

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5895
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    21.3.9.2 states:

    "In the DSI model, since the parameters are first available when the user code calls arguments, receive_request is called from within arguments. It is possible that arguments is not called in the DSI model. The target may call set_exception before calling arguments. The ORB shall guarantee that receive_request is called once, either through arguments or through set_exception."

    The problem here, is that the DSI servant has already been invoked at this point, and the DSI implementation will be unaware that the server interceptor may have cancelled the invocation via raising a system exception or ForwardRequest user exception. So the DSI implementation will carry on, creating all sorts of wonderful havoc as it continues to interact with the ServerRequest PO.

    Any vendors want to comment on what their PI implementation does now?

    Proposed fix:

    First, we should define a new system exception minor code that the servant implementation can detect so that it can clean up and get out of the way as expeditiously as possible when raised by arguments or set_exception. Perhaps a minor code for OBJ_ADAPTER? Should there be two minor codes, to distinguish a system exception from ForwardRequest as the reason for cancelling the invocation?

    Second, we need some more text either in chapter 8 or 21 that states that any calls by the DSI implementation to ServerRequest::set_result or ServerRequest::set_exception will be ignored (or perhaps reraise the exception defined in the previous paragraph) if ServerRequestInterceptor::receive_request raises an exception.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Wed, 2 Apr 2003 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

rules for marshalling ValueBoxes

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5899
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: AT&T ( Duncan Grisby)
  • Summary:

    The GIOP specification does not say anything at all about the rules for marshalling ValueBoxes.

    I believe the expected format is to marshal ValueBoxes as if they were a normal Value with a single member, and that they follow the normal rules about indirections and chunking. The spec should clearly state this.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Wed, 16 Apr 2003 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

restriction of where a valuetype chunk can end

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5892
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: AT&T ( Duncan Grisby)
  • Summary:

    There is a small issue with the restriction of where a valuetype chunk can end. The spec says

    "The data may be split into multiple chunks at arbitrary points except within primitive CDR types, arrays of primitive types, strings, and wstrings, or between the tag and offset of indirections. It is never necessary to end a chunk within one of these types as the length of these types is known before starting to marshal them so they can be added to the length of the currently open chunk."

    However, in the case of array of wchar, the length is not known before starting to marshal, since each char (in GIOP 1.2 and 1.3) is marshalled as a (sort-of) sequence of octets. I think it should be legal to end a valuetype chunk in the middle of an array of char.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 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

Bad text in 22.6 mandates Routing for sendc/sendp

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5856
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    There is a sentence in the first paragraph of 22.6 that should be fixed:

    "The implementation of these methods must generate a method invocation
    as described in Section 22.14, Message Routing, on page 22-50."

    However, 22.2.5.3 allows asynchronous invocations to be delivered via
    synchronous protocols if the RoutingPolicy is ROUTE_NONE.

    This sentence should be changed to:

    "The implementation of these methods may generate a method invocation as
    described in Section 22.14, Message Routing, on page 22-50, depending
    on the effective RoutingPolicy for the invocation."

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Tue, 11 Feb 2003 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

methods on the POA

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7890
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    A lot of the methods on the POA which have USE_DEFAULT_SERVANT or USE_SERVANT_MANAGER as policies don't describe in detail what should happen when one of these policies is set, but no default servant/servant manager is set. For example reference_to_servant, when USE_DEFAULT_SERVANT is set and default servant is registered we return the default servant, but what when no default servant is set, is then the ObjectNotActive the correct exception? Shouldn't this be something like a system exception (bad inv order, obj adapter or something like that?)

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Mon, 1 Nov 2004 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

Codec Interface Deficiencies

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7730
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    CORBA 3, chapter 13.8, defines the Codec interface to encode
    arbitrary data values into CORBA::OctetSeq "blobs" and vice
    versa. This interface can be used, e.g., to supply and retrieve
    ServiceContext data using the PortableInterceptor interfaces.

    In practice, the Codec interface is also being used for data
    serialization, i.e., to store and retrieve arbitrary values in
    files or other databases.

    However, the interface is deficient in that it does not consider
    all possible variables that are needed for interoperability.
    It supports setting the CDR version that is to be used, but
    neglects byteorder and codeset settings.

    Consequently, the encoded values are platform-specific. If a
    value was encoded on a little-endian system, it will not decode,
    or worse, decode erroneously, on a big-endian system. The same
    caveats apply to codesets, e.g., when an ISO-8859-1 encoded
    blob is decoded using UTF-8 or Windows-1252.

    To support interoperability, the Codec interface needs to be
    extended.

    My recommendation is to extend the CodecFactory interface,
    so that it supports creating CDR version-, byteorder-, and
    codeset-specific Codec instances, either supplying user-
    provided values for each, or informing the user about chosen
    defaults.

    Example:

    module IOP {
    const EncodingFormat ENCODING_DEFAULT = -1;

    typedef short ByteorderFormat;
    const ByteorderFormat BYTEORDER_DEFAULT = -1;
    const ByteorderFormat BYTEORDER_BIGENDIAN = 0;
    const ByteorderFormat BYTEORDER_LITTLEENDIAN = 1;

    struct EncodingExt

    { EncodingFormat format; octet major_version; // set to 0 for default octet minor_version; ByteorderFormat byteorder; CONV_FRAME::CodeSetId char_data; // set to 0 for default CONV_FRAME::CodeSetId wchar_data; // set to 0 for default }

    ;

    local interface CodecFactory

    { // create_codec remains as before Codec create_codec_ext (inout EncodingExt enc) raises (UnknownEncoding); }

    ;
    };

    The create_codec_ext operation would create an appropriate
    Codec instance, if available; it will then set all "default"
    members of the EncodingExt structure to their actual values,
    so that the application can store this information along
    with any encoded values.

    One potential criticism of the above is that the encoding
    format's parameters depend on the encoding format. For example,
    there may be encoding formats that are byteorder-independent,
    or that consistently use UTF-32 for strings, thus not needing
    codeset parameters. Also, they may use wildly different
    versioning. So a "better" solution might involve passing
    the EncodingFormat, and an Any with a format-specific data
    type.

    That could look like:

    module GIOP {
    typedef short ByteorderFormat;
    const ByteorderFormat BYTEORDER_DEFAULT = -1;
    const ByteorderFormat BYTEORDER_BIGENDIAN = 0;
    const ByteorderFormat BYTEORDER_LITTLEENDIAN = 1;

    struct CDREncodingParameters

    { octet major_version; // set to 0 for default octet minor_version; ByteorderFormat byteorder; CONV_FRAME::CodeSetId char_data; // set to 0 for default CONV_FRAME::CodeSetId wchar_data; // set to 0 for default }

    ;
    };

    module IOP {
    const EncodingFormat ENCODING_DEFAULT = -1;

    local interface CodecFactory

    { // create_codec remains as before Codec create_codec_ext (inout EncodingFormat format, inout Any parameters) raises (UnknownEncoding); }

    ;
    };

    Once we have consensus on the approach, I will gladly volunteer
    to come up with a full set of editing instructions

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Thu, 9 Sep 2004 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

CORBA 3.02, page 11-25, section 11.3.6

  • Legacy Issue Number: 6899
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Progress Software ( Steve Vinoski)
  • Summary:

    Fifth bullet near the beginning of this section states:

    Incarnations of a particular object may not overlap; that is, incarnate shall not be invoked with a particular ObjectId while, within the same POA, that ObjectId is in use as the ObjectId of an activated object or as the argument of a call to incarnate or etherealize that has not completed.

    Unfortunately, I do not see anywhere where the exception to be thrown from activate_object_with_id() for this case is specified. According to this text, if incarnate() is executing for a particular ObjectId, any calls to activate_object_with_id() should be rejected by the POA. This came up in comp.object.corba, where someone posted a question as to why Orbix 2000 throws the ObjectAlreadyActive exception for this case.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Mon, 12 Jan 2004 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

module SendingContext

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7340
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MetroApp Entertainment ( Keith Allyn Baker)
  • Summary:

    The CORBA specification has module SendingContext { //... interface CodeBase

    { //... CORBA::FullValueDescription meta(in CORBA::RepositoryId x); //... }

    ; //... }; but there is no CORBA::FullValueDescription defined in the specification, yet the supplied <SendingContext.idl> file declares module SendingContext { //... interface CodeBase

    { //... CORBA::ValueDef::FullValueDescription meta(in CORBA::RepositoryId x); //... }

    ; //... };

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Sat, 15 May 2004 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

An extension of IOR to protect target objects Nature

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7592
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Computer Science Department, National University of Defence Technology ( jack_nudt)
  • Summary:

    Related Specification: CommonObject Request Broker Architecture: Core Specification November 2002 Version 3.0 - Editorial edit to cover formal/02-11-03 Nature: Revision Subject: An extension of IOR to protect target objects Nature: Enhancement Issue Summary: IOR (Interoperable Object Reference) is the distributed reference of a CORBA object. The IOR of a target object is distributed to client applications that want to access the target object. Clients can easily connect to the target objects based on the location information in IOR. As a kind of object discovery scheme, IOR publishes some attributes related to target object, such as IP address, port number, internal object id, etc. As we know, many kinds of attacks can be performed to a target server when the IP address and port number of the target is exposed. The exposition of internal object id may also leads to security problems. We use Abstract IOR (AIOR) to make the originate IOR (we call it regular IOR) transparent to client applications, thus the target objects is protected from potential attacks. Proposed solution: We use proxy technology to protect target servers, following is the architecture of a typical scenario. Service Proxy (SP) acts as a portal for all background servers. SP will handle all requests from clients to background servers. So background servers are transparent to clients. ------------ ----------- | Client | Abstract IORs | Service | | application ---------------+ Proxy | | | | | ----------- --+ BS1's IORs | | | ------------------------- | | | BS2's IORs | | + ------------ | -------+ + BS3's IORs | Background | --------+ + | Server 1 | | Background | -------+ ---------- | Server 2 | | Background | ---------- | Server 2 | ----------- The core concept of the above architecture is Abstract IOR (AIOR). AIOR can be described by a simple equation: AIOR = SP's regular IOR + logical name Logical name is uniquely corresponding to an IOR of an object running on background server. So the SP should set up the mapping before corresponding request comes, and map the logical name in the AIOR to the regular IOR of the target object at background server for a coming request. The structure of AIOR is compatible to regular IOR. Firstly let's have a look at the structure of regular IOR defined at page 13-15. Then we will discuss how to support AIOR based on existing IOR data structures and what interfaces and methods will be defined. module IOP { // IDL // Standard Protocol Profile tag values typedef unsigned long ProfileId; struct TaggedProfile

    { ProfileId tag; sequence <octet> profile_data; }

    ; typedef sequence <TaggedProfile> TaggedProfileSeq ; // an Interoperable Object Reference is a sequence of // object-specific protocol profiles, plus a type ID. struct IOR

    { string type_id; sequence <TaggedProfile> profiles; }

    ; // Standard way of representing multicomponent profiles. // This would be encapsulated in a TaggedProfile. typedef unsigned long ComponentId; struct TaggedComponent

    { ComponentId tag; sequence <octet> component_data; }

    ; typedef sequence<TaggedComponent> TaggedComponentSeq; }; CORBA specification defines 3 standard IOR profiles (at page 13-17): module IOP

    { const ProfileId TAG_INTERNET_IOP = 0; const ProfileId TAG_MULTIPLE_COMPONENTS = 1; const ProfileId TAG_SCCP_IOP = 2; typedef sequence <TaggedComponent> MultipleComponentProfile; }

    ; The following are standard IOR components that can be included in TAG_INTERNET_IOP and TAG_MULTIPLE_COMPONENTS profiles, and may apply to IIOP, other GIOPs, ESIOPs, or other protocols. An ORB must not drop these components from an existing IOR (at page 13-19). module IOP

    { const ComponentId TAG_ORB_TYPE = 0; const ComponentId TAG_CODE_SETS = 1; const ComponentId TAG_POLICIES = 2; const ComponentId TAG_ALTERNATE_IIOP_ADDRESS = 3; const ComponentId TAG_ASSOCIATION_OPTIONS = 13; const ComponentId TAG_SEC_NAME = 14; const ComponentId TAG_SPKM_1_SEC_MECH = 15; const ComponentId TAG_SPKM_2_SEC_MECH = 16; const ComponentId TAG_KerberosV5_SEC_MECH = 17; const ComponentId TAG_CSI_ECMA_Secret_SEC_MECH = 18; const ComponentId TAG_CSI_ECMA_Hybrid_SEC_MECH = 19; const ComponentId TAG_SSL_SEC_TRANS = 20; const ComponentId TAG_CSI_ECMA_Public_SEC_MECH = 21; const ComponentId TAG_ GENERIC_SEC_MECH = 22; const ComponentId TAG_FIREWALL_TRANS = 23; const ComponentId TAG_SCCP_CONTACT_INFO = 24; const ComponentId TAG_JAVA_CODEBASE = 25; const ComponentId TAG_TRANSACTION_POLICY = 26; const ComponentId TAG_MESSAGE_ROUTERS = 30; const ComponentId TAG_OTS_POLICY = 31; const ComponentId TAG_INV_POLICY = 32; const ComponentId TAG_CSI_SEC_MECH_LIST = 33; const ComponentId TAG_NULL_TAG = 34; const ComponentId TAG_SECIOP_SEC_TRANS = 35; const ComponentId TAG_TLS_SEC_TRANS = 36; const ComponentId TAG_ACTIVITY_POLICY = 37; const ComponentId TAG_INET_SEC_TRANS = 123; }

    ; The following additional components that can be used by other protocols are specified in the DCE ESIOP chapter of this document and CORBAServices, Security Service, in the Security Service for DCE ESIOP section (at page 13-19, 13-20): const ComponentId TAG_COMPLETE_OBJECT_KEY = 5; const ComponentId TAG_ENDPOINT_ID_POSITION = 6; const ComponentId TAG_LOCATION_POLICY = 12; const ComponentId TAG_DCE_STRING_BINDING = 100; const ComponentId TAG_DCE_BINDING_NAME = 101; const ComponentId TAG_DCE_NO_PIPES = 102; const ComponentId TAG_DCE_SEC_MECH = 103; // Security Service The following is the description of our proposed supplement to CORBA core specification. We add one component into module IOP: const ComponentId TAG_AIOR_LOGICALNAME = XXX; // XXX is an undetermined ComponentId. The TAG_AIOR_LOGICALNAME component has an associated value of type string encoded as a CDR encapsulation. We have not defined the interface of mapping logical names to regular IOR because now this function is local and its interoperability is not necessary. But if two or more SPs want to exchange their mapping items to provide more intelegent services, we may need to define the coresponding interfaces.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Thu, 15 Jul 2004 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

Mapping from -ORBxxx to Java properties does not work for -ORBInitRef

  • Legacy Issue Number: 6007
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Syracuse University ( Joncheng Kuo)
  • Summary:

    The CORBA 3.0 spec adds the following note in Section 4.5.1: ORB Initialization.

    "Whenever an ORB_init argument of the form -ORBxxx is specified, it is understood that the argument may be represented in different ways in different languages. For example, in Java -ORBxxx is equivalent to a property named org.omg.CORBA.ORBxxx."

    The approach stated in the above note does not work for -ORBInitRef. For example, if you have
    -ORBInitRef NameService=URL,
    you cannot translate the above arguments into a property named "org.omg.CORBA.ORBInitRef" because there can be only one property of this name and there may be many different services. This issue was slightly cover by Issue 3643 (java-rtf), which was not resolved. This issue becomes obvious and important because the note added in the CORBA 3.0 spec.

    Proposed solution: Arguments like "-ORBInitRef id=url" should be equivalent to a property named "org.omg.CORBA.ORBInitRef.id" with value "url".

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Sat, 19 Jul 2003 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

processing TaggedComponents within an IOR

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5439
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Ann Collins)
  • Summary:

    The overhead of processing TaggedComponents within an IOR becomes
    significant when done many times, as in the case of J2EE
    implementations where multiple interceptors are used.

    The definition of IORs in the IOP module is intended to support
    transmission and interoperability, rather than efficient access to the
    local, ORB specific, internal structure.

    I would like to propose that an abstract model of an IOR is introduced
    which recognises that many of the constituent parts of IOR profiles are
    identical for different objects, along the following lines:-

    • an IOR has a type ID string, and contains TaggedProfile instances
    • a TaggedProfile has an ID and data
    • an IIOPProfile is a TaggedProfile; it is composed of an
      IIOPProfileTemplate and an object ID.
    • an IIOPProfileTemplate has IIOP addressing information, and contains
      TaggedComponents.
    • a TaggedComponent has an ID and data
    • a TaggedComponentFactory creates a TaggedComponent
    • a TaggedProfileFactory creates a TaggedProfile

    with corresponding IDL definitions that allow the language bindings
    to optimise conversion between transmission and internal IOR formats
    to provide a performant and natural interface for IOR access.

    Rationale:
    In Java, for example, it should be possible to manipulate IOR
    TaggedProfiles and IIOPProfileTemplate TaggedComponents using the
    facilities of the Java collections framework, or at least some
    equivalent facility that is a natural Java idiom.

    Templates can be used to create IIOPProfiles because the basic object
    adapter model for object creation is to establish many of the properties
    of an IOR when the object adapter is created.

    • This has been present for the POA essentially from the beginning, since
      policies can only be passed to create_POA, and cannot be changed on an
      existing POA.
    • The Portable Interceptors work has also made this clear, since the IOR
      interceptor establish_components method, which is the only time that
      user code can add tagged components to an IOR, is only guaranteed to
      be called once for each distinct set of server policies i.e need only
      be run when an object adapter is created.
    • It is also likely that more than one object within an adapter will
      map to a TCP endpoint.

    TaggedProfile and TaggedComponent are intended as frameworks that may be
    extended to support application defined tagged profiles and components.
    To support this it is necessary to be able to register TaggedProfile and
    TaggedComponentFactory instances with an ORB, in which case any IOR
    unmarshalled by that ORB instance will use the registered factory
    to unmarshal the tagged profile or component.

    Since there has already been quite a bit of discussion about this in the
    Java RTF, here is a proposal for review:-

    Proposal:

    • add the following sections after the IOR Interceptor Overview:-

    21.5.2 An Abstract Model for IORs

    To support efficient access to IORs, avoiding repeated marshaling and
    demarshaling of IOR components, it is helpful to have an abstract model
    of the, ORB specific, local representation of an IOR.

    Recognising that many of the constituent parts of IOR profiles are
    identical for different objects allows the following model to be
    defined:-

    • an IOR has a type ID string, and contains TaggedProfile instances
    • a TaggedProfile has an ID and data
    • an IIOPProfile is a TaggedProfile; it is composed of an
      IIOPProfileTemplate and an object ID.
    • an IIOPProfileTemplate has IIOP addressing information, and contains
      TaggedComponents.
    • a TaggedComponent has an ID and data
    • a TaggedComponentFactory creates a TaggedComponent
    • a TaggedProfileFactory creates a TaggedProfile

    21.5.3 Local IOR Interfaces

    The following interfaces provide access to the data within a local IOR
    using this model.

    TaggedProfile and TaggedComponent are generic interfaces. Users of the ORB
    may create implementations of them. Corresponding factories may be
    registered with the IORFactory.

    The IORFactory is obtained through a call to
    ORB::resolve_initial_references ("IORFactory") and may also be used to
    obtain an IOR for an Object.

    An ORB must return all tagged profiles in an IOR through the IOR
    getProfiles operations. The ProfileIterator interface allows a client
    to iterate through the TaggedProfiles using the next operation.
    Those profiles whose ids have a registered TaggedProfileFactory will
    be made available in the form returned by the registered factory's
    TaggedProfileFactory create operation, which must return a subtype of
    TaggedProfile.

    An ORB will provide a TaggedProfileFactory implementation for the
    IIOPProfile.

    Profiles with ids for which no TaggedProfileFactory has been registered
    will be made available as instances of a generic ORB implementation of
    TaggedProfile.

    Similarly, an ORB must return all tagged components in an IIOP profile
    through the IIOPProfile().getTemplate().getComponents() operations.
    The ComponentIterator interface allows a client to iterate through the
    TaggedComponents using the next operation.
    Those components whose ids have a registered TaggedComponentFactory
    will be made available in the form returned by the registered factory's
    TaggedComponentFactory create operation, which must return a subtype of
    TaggedComponent.
    Components with ids for which no TaggedComponentFactory has been
    registered will be made available as instances of a generic ORB
    implementation of TaggedComponent.

    module PortableInterceptor {

    local interface TaggedComponent

    { readonly attribute IOP::ComponentId component_id; readonly attribute CORBA::OctetSeq component_data; IOP::TaggedComponent convert(); }

    ;

    local interface ComponentIterator

    { TaggedComponent next(); boolean has_next(); }

    ;

    local interface TaggedProfile

    { readonly attribute IOP::ProfileId profile_id; readonly attribute CORBA::OctetSeq profile_data; IOP::TaggedProfile convert(); }

    ;

    local interface ProfileIterator

    { TaggedProfile next(); boolean has_next(); }

    ;

    local interface IOR

    { readonly attribute string type_id; ProfileIterator get_profiles (); ProfileIterator get_profiles_by_id (in IOP::ProfileId profile_id); }

    ;

    local interface IIOPProfileTemplate

    { readonly attribute IIOP::Version iiop_version; readonly attribute string host; readonly attribute unsigned short port; ComponentIterator get_components(); ComponentIterator get_components_by_id (in IOP::ComponentId id); }

    ;

    local interface IIOPProfile:TaggedProfile

    { readonly attribute CORBA::OctetSeq object_key; readonly attribute IIOPProfileTemplate profile_template; }

    ;

    local interface TaggedComponentFactory

    { readonly attribute IOP::ComponentId factory_id; TaggedComponent create_tagged_component (in CORBA::OctetSeq component_data); }

    ;

    local interface TaggedProfileFactory

    { readonly attribute IOP::ProfileId factory_id; TaggedProfile create_tagged_profile (in CORBA::OctetSeq profile_data); }

    ;

    local interface IORFactory

    { IOR create_ior (in Object obj); void register_tagged_profile_factory (in TaggedProfileFactory tpf); void register_tagged_component_factory (in TaggedComponentFactory tcf); }

    ;

    };

    21.5.3.1 IOR Factory Interface

    create_ior
    Return an IOR relating to the given Object.

    If create_ior is invoked when the object reference is not bound,
    standard system exception BAD_INV_ORDER with minor code n will be
    raised.

    register_tagged_profile_factory
    Register a TaggedProfileFactory to create TaggedProfiles with the id
    returned by the given factory's getId method. If a TaggedProfileFactory
    already exists for the given id, standard system exception
    BAD_INV_ORDER is raised with a standard minor code of n+1.
    Instances of this interface may be defined by users to support custom
    tagged profiles.

    register_tagged_component_factory
    Register a TaggedComponentFactory to read TaggedComponents with the id
    returned by the given factory's getId method. If a
    TaggedComponentFactory already exists for the given id, standard system
    exception BAD_INV_ORDER is raised with a standard minor code of n+2.
    Instances of this interface may be defined by users to support custom
    tagged components.

    21.5.3.2 IOR Interface

    This interface gives access to a local representation of an
    IOP::IOR.

    type_id
    The type id string from the IOR.

    get_profiles
    Returns an iterator over the TaggedProfiles within the IOR.

    get_profiles_by_id
    Returns an iterator over the TaggedProfiles with the given
    Profileid.

    21.5.3.3 TaggedProfile Interface

    This interface gives access to a local representation of an
    IOP::TaggedProfile.

    profile_id
    This attribute is the identifier for this TaggedProfile.

    profile_data
    This attribute is the data from the TaggedProfile. It is
    normally a CDR encapsulation.

    convert
    Create an IOP representation of this TaggedProfile

    21.5.3.4 TaggedComponent Interface

    This interface gives access to a local representation of an
    IOP::TaggedComponent.

    component_id
    This attribute is the identifier for this TaggedComponent.

    component_data
    This attribute is the data from the TaggedComponent. It is
    normally a CDR encapsulation.

    convert
    Create an IOP representation of this TaggedComponent.

    21.5.3.5 TaggedProfileFactory Interface

    factory_id
    This attribute is the identifier of profiles created by this
    TaggedProfileFactory.

    create
    Create a TaggedProfile from the given profile_data.

    21.5.3.6 TaggedComponentFactory Interface

    factory_id
    This attribute is the identifier of components created by this
    TaggedComponentFactory.

    create
    Create a TaggedComponent from the given component_data.

    21.5.3.7 ProfileIterator Interface

    next
    Returns the next TaggedProfile in the iteration. If next is called
    after the last TaggedProfile has been returned, BAD_INV_ORDER will
    be raised with a standard minor code of n+3.

    If an IOR is modified in between calls to next, the behavior of
    further calls to next is implementation dependent.

    has_next
    Returns true if the iteration has more elements. In other words,
    returns true if next would return an element rather than throwing
    an exception.

    21.5.3.8 ComponentIterator Interface

    next
    Returns the next TaggedComponent in the iteration. If next is called
    after the last TaggedComponent has been returned, BAD_INV_ORDER will
    be raised with a standard minor code of n+3.

    If a profile is modified in between calls to next, the behavior of
    further calls to next is implementation dependent.

    has_next
    Returns true if the iteration has more elements. In other words,
    returns true if next would return an element rather than throwing
    an exception.

    21.5.3.9 IIOPProfile Interface

    object_key
    This attribute is the Object key contained in this IIOPProfile.

    profile_template
    This attribute is the IIOPProfileTemplate associated with this
    IIOPProfile.

    21.5.3.10 IIOPProfileTemplate Interface

    iiop_version
    This attribute is the GIOP version of this profile. If the major
    value is 1 and the minor value is 0, this profile cannot contain
    any TaggedComponents.

    host
    This attribute is the host name string of this IIOPProfileTemplate.

    port
    This attribute is the port number of this IIOPProfileTemplate.

    get_components
    Return an iterator over the TaggedComponents within the
    IIOPProfileTemplate.

    get_components_by_id
    Returns an iterator over the TaggedComponents with the given
    ComponentId.

    In current Section 21.5.3:

    • add the following after the ORBInfo Interface

    local interface IORInfo_3_n:IORInfo

    { ProfileIterator get_profiles (); ProfileIterator get_profiles_by_id (in IOP::ProfileId profile_id); }

    ;

    • add the following sections:

    21.5.3.4 get_profiles
    Returns an iterator over the TaggedProfiles within the IOR.

    21.5.3.5 get_profiles_by_id
    Returns an iterator over the TaggedProfiles within the IOR with the
    given Profileid.

    Parameter Description
    profile_id The IOP::ProfileId of the profiles in the iteration
    to be returned.

    • add the IORFactory to the list of reserved ObjectIds for
      resolve_initial_references in section 4.5.2
  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Tue, 25 Jun 2002 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

Make anonymous types illegal

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16047
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    the specification already deprecated anonymous types, but to our idea it would be time to update the specification to say that anonymous types are illegal and remove all references to them

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 2 Mar 2011 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

interface ORB should be local

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16315
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The ORB is intended to be a local object, it is not to be used outside of the process, so it should be a local interface

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 7 Jun 2011 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

Section: 21.3.13

  • Legacy Issue Number: 10817
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    Table 21-1 has the following note: When ClientRequestInfo is passed to send_request, there is an entry in the list for every argument, whether in, inout, or out. But only the in and inout arguments will be available. What is the behaviour when I request an out value? It says only that in/inout are available, but when I have an argument that is of out and I do get the value, do I then get an empty value (which could lead to a crash when using it), do I get an exception? That must be clearly specified by the spec

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 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

Code Set Conversion on Operations

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8244
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Motorola ( Gary Duzan)
  • Summary:

    The "operation" field in the RequestHeader_1_2 struct is a string,
    which implies that it should be subject to code set conversion. However,
    existing practice seem to be that it is not converted, and there are other
    factors which could make it difficult for implementations to convert it.
    In addition, since the operation name is based on IDL/ASCII, conversion
    doesn't necessarily make sense.

    The easiest remedy would be to specify this as an exception in the
    text of the spec. The "correct" remedy would probably be to change the
    operation field from "string" to "sequence<octet>". This could cause
    problems at some point, but it might not break too much since the CDR
    encodings are the same.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Mon, 7 Feb 2005 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

Section: 4.3.13

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8221
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The spec describes respository_id which should be repository_id. Is on two places, in 4.3.14 and 4.3

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Thu, 3 Feb 2005 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

Appendix A

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8230
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The overview of all system exceptions is missing several ones which seem to be availalble in http://www.omg.org/docs/omg/03-01-04 For example NO_IMPLEMENT_TABLE minor code 8 is missing

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Fri, 4 Feb 2005 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

CORBA 3.0.3 ch. 3.4 OMG IDL Grammar

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7978
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Oliver Kellogg)
  • Summary:

    The grammar definition for valuetype <state_member> via the rule
    <declarators> includes <complex_declarator>.

    It should be clarified whether valuetype state members are intended
    to include <array_declarator>.

    IMHO clarification is needed as state members are usually mapped
    to accessor methods in programming languages. If permissible,
    the accessor methods would return a complex type.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 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

The POA state inactive is not used consistent.

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7955
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The POA state inactive is not used consistent. On several places it is called deactivated instead of inactive. For example in 11.3.8.2, in the transient bullet, it mentions: "Once the POA's POAManager enters the dactivated state". Chapter 11.3.2.1 describes clearly the states are: active, inactive, holding and discarding. I would propose to scan the complete spec for these incorrect POA Manager state.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 1 Dec 2004 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

argument of the set_servant call has a small typo

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7896
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The argument of the set_servant call has a small typo, it must be p_servant to match the full IDL spec some pages further

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 2 Nov 2004 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

change in the POAManager

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7893
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    I would propose to change in the POAManager the following: State get_state(); string get_id(); to readonly attribute State the_state; readonly attribute string the_id; The get method just hide the fact that this are readonly attributes

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Mon, 1 Nov 2004 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

Add a typedef for the POAManager id

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7892
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    Add a typedef for the POAManager id and use this throughout the spec for POAManager, POAManagerFactory and IORInterceptor add typedef string POAManagerId change in POAManager string get_id(); to POAManagerId get_id(); Or better (see other issue). readonly attribute POAManagerId the_id;

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Mon, 1 Nov 2004 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

add interface ORB { Object string_to_object ( in wstring str ); };

  • Legacy Issue Number: 12857
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    We see more and more use of unicode. It happens more and more that users have code that gets unicode (wchar) commandline arguments. In order to smoothen corba usage for these users we propose to add interface ORB

    { Object string_to_object ( in wstring str ); }

    ;

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 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

add CORBA::ORB::arg_list

  • Legacy Issue Number: 12773
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    For a 24x7 system that doesn't shutdown and gets reconfigured it would be useful if we could for example change "-ORBDefaultInitRef" after the ORB has been initialized. That then would be used for any objects resolved after that. Maybe we could add CORBA::ORB::arg_list (inout arg_list argv); Which would change the arglist

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 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

Section 13.7 ServiceContext

  • Legacy Issue Number: 12559
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    ServiceContext is defined as: struct ServiceContext

    { ServiceId context_id; sequence <octet> context_data; }

    ; Anonymous types are deprecated, this should be struct ServiceContext

    { ServiceId context_id; CORBA::OctetSeq context_data; }

    ;

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 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

Section: 4.8.1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 12551
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The corba spec defines a lot of policies. In 4.8.5 client exposed policies are listed. We do have several of them, also policies could be applied at several levels, but some of them can't be applied to each level. To our idea the scope at which policies can be applied should not only be in the possible, but also part of the policy itself. That way application code and the corba orb could check this. Maybe add this to policy typedef unsigned long PolicyScope; const PolicyScope POLICY_SCOPE_OBJECT = 0x01; const PolicyScope POLICY_SCOPE_CURRENT = 0x02; const PolicyScope POLICY_SCOPE_SCOPE = 0x04; const PolicyScope POLICY_SCOPE_POA = 0x08; const PolicyScore POLICY_SCOPE_CLIENT_EXPOSED = 0x10; Then add to the interface Policy readonly attribute PolicyScope policy_scope; This attribute can then be set in the policy with the values above as bitmask. This can be documented clearly in the documentation, orbs can check this, etc.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 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

Section: 21.7.3

  • Legacy Issue Number: 12555
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    This chapter defines register_orb_initializer. This itself is ok, but at the moment we have a 24*7 system and we get a new ORBInitializer shipped in for example a DLL we maybe want to get rid of a certain orbinitializer that we registered earlier. This is currently not possible, we propose to add an unregister_orb_initializer which makes it possible to unregister an orbinitializer again

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 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

move struct to IOP module

  • Legacy Issue Number: 12550
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The CORBA spec defines the following types to proposage messaging qos. This is really nothing more then propagating policies values. struct PolicyValue

    { CORBA::PolicyType ptype; sequence<octet> pvalue; }

    ; typedef sequence<PolicyValue> PolicyValueSeq; This is now in the Messaging module, but the propagation of policy values is something that we want to use for ZIOP but also seems usable for other libraries. Instead of duplicating this struct to different modules I propose to move this to the IOP module.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 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

Proposal to change PortableInterceptor::ReplyStatus to a real enum

  • Legacy Issue Number: 11514
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    Proposal to change PortableInterceptor::ReplyStatus to a real enum. Now it is a short with constant values, but this means there is no real relationship between the type and the possible values as possible with an enum. With for example C++ we then can let the compiler check if we don't use incorrect values. module PortableInterceptor { enum ReplyStatus

    { SUCCESSFUL, SYSTEM_EXCEPTION, USER_EXCEPTION, LOCATION_FORWARD, TRANSPORT_RETRY, UNKNOWN }

    ; };

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 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

Third line of 23.1.3.4, ACTIVE must be bold

  • Legacy Issue Number: 11525
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    Third line of 23.1.3.4, ACTIVE must be bold

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 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

Proposal to change PortableInterceptor::AdapterState to a real enum

  • Legacy Issue Number: 11515
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    Proposal to change PortableInterceptor::AdapterState to a real enum. Now it is a short with constant values, but this means there is no real relationship between the type and the possible values as possible with an enum. With for example C++ we then can let the compiler check if we don't use incorrect values. module PortableInterceptor { enum AdapterState

    { HOLDING, ACTIVE, DISCARDING, INACTIVE, NON_EXISTENT }

    ; };

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 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

Section: 15.4.2/16.4.1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 11332
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    In 15.4.2 and 16.4.1 get_implementation is mentioned, but this method is nowhere else in the spec. Should this method be there? So far as I can see this is deprecated and should be removed.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Fri, 7 Sep 2007 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

Section: 13.6.10.1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 11161
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ADLINK Technology Ltd ( Steve Osselton)
  • Summary:

    The use of the '/' character to identify the object key component of a corbaloc URL is ambiguous where a protocol address also contains the character. Example: corbaloc:uiop:/tmp/uiop/xx/steve This could represent either a uiop address '/tmp/uiop' and an object key 'xx/steve/ or a uiop address '/tmp/uiop/xx' and an object key 'steve'. Suggest removing the '/' character from the list of non excaped object key characters (bottom of page 13-26)to resolve this ambiguity. The corbaloc would then become: corbaloc:uiop:/tmp/uiop/xx%27steve

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 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

struct PolicyValue

  • Legacy Issue Number: 12549
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    This section defines struct PolicyValue

    { CORBA::PolicyType ptype; sequence<octet> pvalue; }

    ; Which should be as below because anonymous types are deprecated struct PolicyValue

    { CORBA::PolicyType ptype; CORBA::OctetSeq pvalue; }

    ;

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 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

Section: 21.3.14.11

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8862
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The minor code for add_reply_service_context is not correct. The spec says: Indicates the behavior of this operation when a service context already exists with the given ID. If false, then BAD_INV_ORDER with a standard minor code of 11 is raised. If true, then the existing service context is replaced by the new one. The minor code should be 15.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 8 Jun 2005 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

Section: 4.5.2

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8860
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    This corba spec describes POAManagerFactory. I have been searching on the web and it seems for example Orbacus has the possibility to do a resolve_initial_references ("POAManager"). This seems not possible with the latest corba spec. This seems an usefull extension. The only option there is now is to get the RootPOA, get from there the POAManagerFactory and use that again.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 7 Jun 2005 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

Section: 21.4.3.1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8856
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    In case get_slot is called from withing an ORB itializer chapter 21.4.3.1 says a BAD_INV_ORDER with minor code 10 is thrown, this should be 14 as mentioned also in 21.7.2.11

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Mon, 6 Jun 2005 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

update the spec to not used anonymous types

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8783
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The spec describes that anonymous types are deprecated and will be removed in the future (as below), but this is used throughout the spec. Before deprecating this fully, update the spec to not used anonymous types: >From 3.11.6 IDL currently permits the use of anonymous types in a number of places. For example: struct Foo

    { long value; sequence<Foo> chain; // Legal (but deprecated) }

    Anonymous types cause a number of problems for language mappings and are therefore deprecated by this specification. Anonymous types will be removed in a future version, so new IDL should avoid use of anonymous types and use a typedef to name such types instead. Compilers need not issue a warning if a deprecated construct is encountered.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 18 May 2005 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

Section: 21.7

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8843
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    In the draft 3.1 spec chapter 21.7 says the following: An Interceptor's behaviour may itself be modified by one or more Interceptor Policies. These Policy objects are created using a call to ORB::create_policy and are associated with an Interceptor during registration (see Section 21.7.2, ORBInitInfo Interface). All Policy interfaces defined in this section are local. The ORB can be accesed via the implicit get_orb operation of ORBInitInfo. The ORBInitInfo is passed on the pre_init and post_init call of the ORBInitializer but what should be the orb in the pre_init call? The orb is not initialized at that moment? Shouldn't it say that calling get_orb on the ORBInitInfo in the pre_init call gives the default exception that is given when get_orb is called on a local object?

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 1 Jun 2005 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

Section: 4.2 (02)

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8633
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    Struct ServiceInformation is wrong, the sequence<> lines should be removed. struct ServiceInformation

    { sequence <ServiceOption> service_options; ServiceOptionSeq service_options; sequence <ServiceDetail> service_details; ServiceDetailSeq service_details; }

    ;

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 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

Section: 7.4

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8630
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    Minor formatting issue in: abstract valuetype Pollable

    { boolean is_ready( in unsigned long timeout ); PollableSet create_pollable_set( ); }

    ; boolean is_ready is in the wrong font in the idl overview

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 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

Section: 4.2

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8632
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The is an error in the ServiceDetail struct. service_detail is listed twice, the first one should be removed. struct ServiceDetail

    { ServiceDetailType service_detail_type; sequence <octet> service_detail; ServiceDetailData service_detail; }

    ;

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 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

Section: 21.9.1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8844
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The draft document says the following in 21.9.1. The description about the type of exceptions sounds very vague. Shouldn't the spec be more detailed, which type of exceptions should be ignored specifically? Any exceptional return from the invocation of any operation of the ORBInitializer interface other than those resulting from the failure to instantiate a portable interceptor object shall result in the abandonment of the ORB initialization and destruction of the ORB. Any ORBInitializer implementation that needs the ORB to ignore any thrown exceptions can simply catch and discard them itself.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 1 Jun 2005 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

Section: 13.6.2

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8631
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    Update: struct IOR

    { string type_id; sequence <TaggedProfile> profiles; }

    ; to struct IOR

    { string type_id; TaggedProfileSeq profiles; }

    ; And also use CORBA::OctectSeq instead of sequence<octet>

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 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

Typo in sections 22.10.1.1 and 22.10.1.2

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8629
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    In section 2.10.1.1, page 22-26 (my copy is formal/04-03-01),
    enumerated item 3, second bullet, the text reads "232-1 - the
    maximum value for unsigned long [...]". The "32" needs to be
    in superscript, i.e., to indicate "2 to the power of 32 minus
    1".

    The same typo exists in section 2.10.1.2, page 22-28, fourth
    paragraph, second bullet (at the top of the page).

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 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

Minor code ambiguity

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8618
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Neil Richards)
  • Summary:

    In the CORBA specification dated 04-03-12, the last two paragraphs on page 15-33 (section 15.4.1) describe the use of MARSHAL minor codes 7 and 8.
    However, this use of these minor codes is not reflected in the table of minor codes on page A-11 (appendix A).

    Furthermore, MARSHAL minor code 7 has also been assigned (at an earlier date?) to an issue resolved in the Java to IDL specification dated 03-09-04 (see page 1-50 / end of section 1.5.1.5).
    This use of minor code 7 is reflected in the table in the CORBA specification.
    However minor code 10, which is also specified in the same section in the Java to IDL specification, is not documented in the CORBA specification.

    In summary, MARSHAL minor code 7 is double-booked, whilst minor codes 8 (used in the CORBA specification) and 10 (used by the Java to IDL specification) are not documented in the table of codes.

    Proposed solution:

    Change section 15.4.1 to define the use of MARSHAL minor code 9 (in addition to minor code 8), instead of MARSHAL minor code 7.

    Update the table of minor codes on page A-11 with the definitions of MARSHAL minor codes 8, 9 and 10.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 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

Moving *Seq typedefs into ORB chapter

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8586
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    In the CORBA specification, chapter 5 (Value Type
    Semantics), section 5.5 (Custom Marshalling), defines
    sequences of primitive types in the CORBA module,
    i.e., CORBA::StringSeq et al. Some of these types are
    then used by the DynamicAny and Portable Interceptor
    chapters.

    The presence of these typedefs in section 5.5 seems
    to imply that they only need to be defined if the ORB
    implements custom marshalling – a feature still
    lacking in some open-source and commercial ORBs.

    In my experience, having worked with multiple ORBs,
    many of them do not provide the complete set of
    typedefs in their "orb.idl" file. Many ORBs only
    provide a limited set, usually, the set that is
    exercised by the other ORB features (such as PI).
    This implies that most ORBs added these typedefs
    on an "as needed" basis instead of simply referring
    to section 5.5.

    I suggest to move these typedefs from section 5.5
    into chapter 4 (ORB interface), e.g., into section
    4.2 (ORB operations) to highlight that these types
    should be present even if custom marshalling is not
    implemented by the ORB.

    Proposed resolution:

    In section 5.5.2 (Marshalling Streams), cut the
    type definitions, starting with AnySeq, up to and
    including WStringSeq.

    In section 4.2, in the IDL code fragment, at the
    beginning of the CORBA module, paste the type
    definitions cut above.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 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

69.8.2.8 The simple Element, page 69-538

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5508
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    2. 69.8.2.8 The simple Element, page 69-538
    Simple Extensions and Changes
    a) Enumerations - Add an optional enumerations element to the simple
    definition.
    This allows a simple enumeration property to be defined. Each enumeration
    label
    has an associated value. The values are all of the same simple type.

    Change simple element to:

    <!ELEMENT simple
    ( description?
    , value
    , choices?
    , enumerations?
    , defaultvalue?
    ) >

    Define new enumerations element

    <!ELEMENT enumerations
    ( enumeration+
    )>
    <!ELEMENT enumeration EMPTY>
    <!ATTLIST enumeration
    label CDATA #REQUIRED
    value CDATA #IMPLIED>

    b) Short appears twice in the simple type attribute definition. Remove
    second
    occurrence.
    <!ELEMENT simple
    ( description?
    , value
    , choices?
    , defaultvalue?
    ) >
    <!ATTLIST simple
    name CDATA #IMPLIED
    type ( boolean

    char
    double
    float
    short – 1st occurrence
    long
    objref
    octet
    short – 2nd occurrence
    string
    ulong
    ushort
    ) #REQUIRED >

    c) Units - add an optional units element to indicate the units of
    measurement for
    a simple property.

    <!ELEMENT simple
    ( description?
    , value
    , choices?
    , units?
    , defaultvalue?
    ) >

    <!ELEMENT units (#PCDATA)>

    d) Property Kind - The properties file for a component should not be
    restricted to
    only initial configuration properties. A component has many different types
    of
    properties and when defining a component one should be able to define these
    types of properties in a generic way. Add a kind element or attribute for a
    property definition. A component has readonly, writeonly, and readwrite
    properties. Simple properties can also be used for a component factory's
    create
    options parameter (home) or executable parameters/arguments. Only simple
    properties can be used for executable parameters.

    New simplekind element

    <!ELEMENT simplekind EMPTY>
    <!ATTLIST simplekind
    kindtype (configure_writeonly | configure_readwrite | execparam |
    query_readonly | factoryparam) "configure_readwrite">

    Change simple definition to:

    <!ELEMENT simple
    ( description?
    , value
    , choices?
    , simplekind*
    , defaultvalue?
    ) >

    The propertykind can be an optional element or attribute for the stuct and
    sequence elements.

    New propertykind element

    <!ELEMENT propertykind EMPTY>
    <!ATTLIST propertykind
    kindtype (configure_writeonly | configure_readwrite |
    query_readonly | factoryparam) "configure">

    Change Struct and Sequence to

    <!ELEMENT struct
    ( description?
    , ( simple

    sequence
    struct
    valuetype
    )*
    , propertykind?
    ) >
    <!ATTLIST struct
    name CDATA #IMPLIED
    type CDATA #REQUIRED >

    <!ELEMENT sequence
    ( description?
    , ( simple*

    struct*
    sequence*
    valuetype*
    )
    , propertykind?
    ) >
    <!ATTLIST sequence
    name CDATA #IMPLIED
    type CDATA #REQUIRED >
  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Mon, 15 Jul 2002 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

FullInterfaceDescription and base_interfaces question

  • Legacy Issue Number: 9140
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Progress Software ( Steve Vinoski)
  • Summary:

    Regarding the base_interfaces attribute of the Interface Repository
    (IFR) InterfaceDef and the ExtInterfaceDef interfaces, the CORBA spec
    has only this to say:

    "The base_interfaces attribute lists all the interfaces from which
    this interface inherits."

    Does that sentence mean that the base_interfaces attribute lists only
    immediate base interfaces, or does it list all base interfaces,
    i.e., the transitive closure of the inheritance graph (minus the
    implied Object interface at the root)? I believe it is supposed to be
    a list of only immediate interfaces, as one can make further calls on
    the IFR to obtain more information about those bases, including
    their bases.

    However, both the FullInterfaceDescription and the
    ExtFullInterfaceDescription structures also have a base_interfaces
    member, which is specified as a sequence of repository IDs.
    Unfortunately, the specification contains no description whatsoever
    for this member. I argue that unlike the base_interfaces attribute
    described above, this member can't list only the immediate base
    interfaces.

    I believe that the base_interfaces member of the
    FullInterfaceDescription and the ExtFullInterfaceDescription
    structures should contain the transitive closure of all base
    interfaces. These structures are intended to supply full interface
    descriptions, after all. Specifying the base_interfaces as I suggest
    would match the operations and attributes fields of the same structs,
    which are already explicitly specified to contain all operations and
    attributes respectively from the transitive closure of the
    inheritance graph. Note also that if base_interfaces does not contain
    the transitive closure of all base interfaces, there's no way to
    obtain the information from TypeCodes, since names do not appear in
    TypeCodes in minimum CORBA.

    I therefore propose that the third paragraph of section 10.5.24.1 of
    CORBA 3.0.2 be changed from this:

    "The describe_interface operation returns a FullInterfaceDescription
    describing the interface, including its operations and attributes.
    The operations and attributes fields of the FullInterfaceDescription
    structure include descriptions of all of the operations and
    attributes in the transitive closure of the inheritance graph of the
    interface being described."

    to add a sentence defining the base_interfaces member, like this:

    "The describe_interface operation returns a FullInterfaceDescription
    describing the interface, including its operations and attributes.
    The operations and attributes fields of the FullInterfaceDescription
    structure include descriptions of all of the operations and
    attributes in the transitive closure of the inheritance graph of the
    interface being described. The base_interfaces field of the
    FullInterfaceDescription structure includes the repository IDs of all
    the base interfaces in the transitive closure of the inheritance
    graph of the interface being described, except for the repository ID
    of the implied Object base interface."

    Note that even if this change is made, the base_interfaces attribute
    of InterfaceDef and ExtInterfaceDef can (and should) remain as
    listing only immediate bases, assuming that's what the spec's
    original intent was.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Mon, 7 Nov 2005 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

CORBA Exceptions

  • Legacy Issue Number: 9618
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: condor networks ( ramesh babu boya)
  • Summary:

    I implemented CORBA functionality, in that implementation I got some exceptions. I am sending that exceptions list in the below. omniORB: ERROR – the application attempted to invoke an operation on a nil reference. terminate called after throwing an instance of 'CORBA::INV_OBJREF' Aborted (core dumped) I have some doubts on these exceptions. What is the cause for this exception? How can I solve this exception? Please clarify my doubts.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Thu, 4 May 2006 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

Allowing mutual recursion for IDL structs - clarification needed

  • Legacy Issue Number: 10558
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Borland Software Corporation ( Naveed Shaikh)
  • Summary:

    There was an issue 8969 (Allowing mutual recursion for IDL structures) posted sometime back on CORBA RTF (www.omg.org/issues/issue8969.txt). I am looking for a clarification in the proposed resolution, which allows for the mutual recursion between non-nested structures (CORBA 3.0 specification, section 3.11.2.3). The proposal essentially extends the definition of incompleteness of a struct/union as follows:

    The original definition was:
    o A struct/union is termed incomplete until its full definition is provided; that is, until the scope of the struct/union definition is closed by a terminating "}"

    The introduced proposal added to the original definition:
    o If a sequence member of a structure or union refers to an incomplete type, the structure or union itself remains incomplete until the member's definition is completed

    Section 3.11.2.3 also says that "an incomplete type can only appear as the element type of a sequence definition".

    Question 1:
    Is following legal under the new scheme?

    struct Foo;
    typedef sequence<Foo> FooSeq;

    struct Bar

    { FooSeq fs; }

    ; // Bar remains incomplete since it is holding an incomplete sequence type

    struct FooX

    { Bar b; // Is this valid with Bar marked incomplete here? }

    ;

    struct Foo

    { Bar b; }

    ; // According to the proposal, Foo and Bar are complete now

    Use of Bar under FooX apparently conflicts with the condition that incomplete type can only appear in a sequence definition.

    Question 2:
    Also is it must that there is a mutual recursion between non-nested structures? Consider the following:

    struct Foo;
    typedef sequence<Foo> FooSeq;

    struct Bar

    { FooSeq fs; }

    ; // Bar remains incomplete

    struct Foo

    { long a; }

    ; // Is Bar also complete here when Foo is complete even though Foo doesn't recurse on Bar?

    Is the above IDL valid under the new proposal? There is no constraint in section 3.11.2.3, which doesn't allow for this so it stands valid as per spec. Was issue 8969 also intended to make such cases valid?

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Fri, 1 Dec 2006 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

Section: 11.3.9.16

  • Legacy Issue Number: 9460
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    For activate_object_with_id it is described that when SYSTEM_ID has been set and the object id was not generated by this system or tis POA we throw a BAD_PARAM, but the minor code is not described. Shouldn't this have an unique minor code?

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 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

Section: 22.11.1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 9082
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    In the C++ example code of 22.11.3 Messaging::ExceptionHolder_ptr is used, for valuetypes there is no _ptr, the could should read Messaging::ExceptionHolder *

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 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

Page: 21-43

  • Legacy Issue Number: 9112
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The following methods are not described in this chapter: Object make_object (in string repository_id, in ObjectId id); IOP::TaggedProfileSeq make_profiles (in string repository_id, in ObjectId id); These are mentioned in 21.10.3

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 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

Section: 22.16/

  • Legacy Issue Number: 9075
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    There are some issues with the definition of ExceptionHolder. In 22.16 it is as below, see the raise_exception_with_list, this seems to have two arguments here, in 22.7 there is just one argument. The same problem also appears in the draft 3.1 spec. Also, there is no CORBA::ExceptionList defined in the spec at all, there is Dynamic::ExceptionList but no CORBA::ExceptionList. valuetype ExceptionHolder { void raise_exception() raises (UserExceptionBase); void raise_exception_with_list( in CORBA::ExceptionList exc_list) in Dynamic::ExceptionList exc_list) raises (UserExceptionBase); private boolean is_system_exception; private boolean byte_order;

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 5 Oct 2005 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

Section: 11.3.9

  • Legacy Issue Number: 9016
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The CORBA spec describes the following about the wait_for_completion parameter of the POA::destroy call: The wait_for_completion parameter is handled as follows: • If wait_for_completion is TRUE and the current thread is not in an invocation context dispatched from some POA belonging to the same ORB as this POA, the destroy operation returns only after all active requests have completed and all invocations of etherealize have completed. • If wait_for_completion is TRUE and the current thread is in an invocation context dispatched from some POA belonging to the same ORB as this POA, the BAD_INV_ORDER system exception with standard minor code 3 is raised and POA destruction does not occur. We have a use case where we have an ORB with two POA's, A1 and B1, each POA again has a child A2 and B2. In case we get a request for a servant of A2 to destroy POA B2 and we specify TRUE for wait_for_completion then we get an exception back, but this doesn't seem locally. We understand that when we want to destroy A1 when handling a request using a servant of A2 that we get an exception at that moment. We propose the change the description as following: The wait_for_completion parameter is handled as follows: • If wait_for_completion is TRUE and the current thread is not in an invocation context dispatched from some POA that is a child of this POA or from this POA itself, the destroy operation returns only after all active requests have completed and all invocations of etherealize have completed. • If wait_for_completion is TRUE and the current thread is in an invocation context dispatched from some POA that is a child of this POA or from the POA itself, the BAD_INV_ORDER system exception with standard minor code 3 is raised and POA destruction does not occur.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 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

Section: Chapter 11

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8985
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Office613, S6, NUDT ( DingBo)
  • Summary:

    Section 11.3.1 "The Servant IDL Type" defines the default implementations of get_interface, is_a, and non_existent. However, we should define the default implementation of "get_component" as well because this fuction is also an ORB-mediated implicit object reference operation. By default, this function returns a nil reference. When the object is a component or a facet, as other default implementations, this operation can be overridden by the servant's implementation.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Sun, 4 Sep 2005 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

Section: Chapter 9, Chapter 5

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8986
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Office613, S6, NUDT ( DingBo)
  • Summary:

    Section 9.2.9 says "A reference to a DynValueCommon interface (and interfaces derived from it) exhibit the same sharing semantics as the underlying valuetype that it represents.", which defines the sharing semantics of DynAny. However, I think its precondition is that valuetype's sharing semantics can be preserved in Any. DynAny is usually used with Any, converted from or to Any. If Any can't preserve sharing semantics, there is no necessary for DynAny to keep them. Suppose we use a struct which consists of several valuetypes to store a graph. In order to ensure the correctness of an application based on DII/DSI, converting this struct to Any and then to DynAny should produce an identical graph. However, if Any can't preserve sharing semantics, this goal is impossible. Any's sharing semantics focuses on valuetype conversion, because we don't concern the concrete internal implementation of Any. It means that when we extracting valuetypes from an Any or converting an Any contains valuetypes into a DynAny, sharing semantics should be preserved. For example, different Anys contain same valuetype only produce one valuetype instance when their contents are extracted. We can implement this by the help of a global valuetype manager. To sum up, the sharing semantics of valuetype can be divided into three layers: valuetype itself, Any and DynAny. All of them constitute a complete hierarchy. Only after each layer has been implemented, we are able to ensure that applications that use the DII and DSI can correctly view and preserve the semantics of the valuetype graph. Because Any's sharing semantics is very fundamental, it is necessary for us to clarify it in the specification, though we haven't special chapter/section on Any. We can add it to Chapter 5 "Value Type Semantics". Section 5.2.4.2 only defined sharing semantics in the layer of valuetype itself. We should say something about sharing semantics in the other two layers at the end of this section.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Mon, 5 Sep 2005 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

Allowing Mutual Recursion for IDL Structures

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8969
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    CORBA 2.4 introduced forward declarations for IDL structures
    and unions in support of recursive structures, deprecating the
    prior practice of anonymous types.

    Also allowed were sequences of forward-declared structures
    ("incomplete types"), which could then be used as members in
    defining the structure. Currently, it is only allowed to use
    incomplete types in the actual definition of the type itself.

    As an example in section 3.11.2.3 demonstrates, this does
    allow indirect recursion – but only if the incomplete types
    are nested, as in [first example]

    struct Foo;
    typedef sequence<Foo> FooSeq;

    struct Foo {
    struct Bar

    { FooSeq fs; }

    b;
    };

    Specifically not allowed – and this is the point of this
    issue – is the seemingly more intuitive definition of
    [second example]

    struct Foo;
    typedef sequence<Foo> FooSeq;

    struct Bar

    { FooSeq fs; }

    ;

    struct Foo

    { Bar b; }

    ;

    Currently, the spec says that, "sequence members that are
    recursive must refer to an incomplete type currently under
    definition," and thus Bar is not allowed to use FooSeq as
    a member.

    However, the second example is, in effect, no different than
    the first. In the first example, "Foo::Bar" is a well-defined
    stand-alone type that can be used elsewhere (e.g., as a
    structure member or operation parameter).

    If a developer intends to use both structures, the second
    example makes this much clearer, as it syntactically elevates
    "Foo::Bar" from a mere sub-type to an "independent" structure.

    Therefore, I would like to change the current wording of
    section 3.11.2.3 to allow the second example. A proposed
    update is below.

    This issue is all the more urgent because another available
    specification, the "Deployment and Configuration of
    Component-based Distributed Applications," depends on it,
    by using two IDL structures that mutually and indirectly
    recurse, effectively using [third example]

    struct Package;
    typedef sequence<Package> PackageSeq;

    struct Assembly;
    typedef sequence<Assembly> AssemblySeq;

    struct Package

    { AssemblySeq as; }

    ;

    struct Assembly

    { PackageSeq ps; }

    ;

    In reality, the IDL in question is a bit more complicated,
    using some intermediate structures, which makes rewriting
    the IDL without this mutual recursion impractical and
    non-intuitive – also because both "Package" and "Assembly"
    are meant to be potentially top-level, stand-alone items.

    Some might argue that the IDL restriction existed before
    the "Deployment" specification was adopted, and that CORBA
    should not be changed just because some later spec
    willingly (or rather, naively) used buggy IDL.

    So let me make some more arguments in favor of my request.

    First, as explained above, IDL already allows for indirect
    recursion. It just requires nesting.

    Second, defining structures as a "side-effect" of a member
    declaration is ugly, only marginally better than anonymous
    types. Allowing the type definition of a member to stand
    by itself is, in my opinion, much cleaner.

    Third, indirect recursion between non-nested types is no
    more difficult to implement in an ORB than indirect recursion
    between nested types.

    In fact, some existing ORB products already have no problem
    with indirect recursion, and are able to compile the IDL
    from the third example, resulting in correct code. The code
    works fine with Mico, TAO, JacORB and Combat, all of which
    apparently neglect to implement the check that "sequence
    members that are recursive must refer to an incomplete type
    currently under definition."

    OmniORB does issue a diagnostic, but simply removing the
    check, and making another trivial change to its IDL compiler,
    results in correct C++ code.

    Four, the existing IDL syntax, TypeCodes, CDR marshalling
    rules, and Interface Repository all allow indirect recursion
    to exist. In fact, it is already possible to create the
    above data types using the Interface Repository and
    TypeCode interfaces – as well as to create instances
    using DynamicAny, and to marshal them.

    With this background, I suggest to remove the statement
    that prevents indirect recursion between non-nested
    structures and unions.

    Proposed resolution:

    In section 3.12.2.3, change paragraphs (counting each IDL
    code example as a single paragraph) 10 to 12 (page 3-42)
    from

    If a recursive structure or union member is used,
    sequence members that are recursive must refer to
    an incomplete type currently under definition. For
    example

    struct Foo;
    typedef sequence<Foo> FooSeq;
    struct Bar

    { long value; FooSeq chain; // Illegal, Foo is not an enclosing }

    ; // struct or union.

    Compilers shall issue a diagnostic if this rule is
    violated.

    to

    If a sequence member of a structure or union refers
    to an incomplete type, the structure or union itself
    remains incomplete until the member's definition is
    completed. For example

    struct Foo;
    typedef sequence<Foo> FooSeq;
    struct Bar

    { long value; FooSeq chain; // Use of incomplete type }

    ; // Bar itself remains incomplete
    struct Foo

    { // ... }

    ; // Foo and Bar are complete

    Thank you for listening. Also thanks to Jeff Parsons
    and Boris Kolpakov from Vanderbilt University for
    researching this issue.

    We, the submitters of the "Deployment" specification,
    genuinely believe that indirect recursion is useful,
    and its lack (and having to work around) would take
    considerable value from the specification.

    I am uncomfortable arguing to change another spec
    to fix ours. But one spec has to change, and I believe
    that indirect recursion is a useful feature that already
    (unwillingly) exists in many ORBs, that it is no more
    problematic to implement than the existing means of
    recursion, and that the resulting data types are already
    valid when obtained from the TypeCode or Interface
    Repository interfaces.

    Considering the conflict of available specifications,
    I am tempted to flag this issue as urgent. Andrew, is
    that even possible, given that there is no active Core
    RTF?

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 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

Page: 21-5

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8874
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    In the Interceptor interface there is a destroy method which can throw a system exception just like all other corba calls. What is the behaviour when the orb shutdown is done and an Interceptor::destroy() call throws an exception? Should the ORB ignore this exception and continue the shutdown or should it return the exception to the caller. I would except ignore the exception and continue but the spec doesn't describe the behaviour.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 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

Section: Appendix A

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8864
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The tags for unreliable multicast are missing. // The following are defined in 03-01-11 const ProfileId TAG_UIPMC = 3; const ComponentId TAG_GROUP = 39; const ComponentId TAG_GROUP_IIOP = 40;

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 8 Jun 2005 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

Page: 9-1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8879
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: nudt ( cyberdb)
  • Summary:

    There are some inconsistent idl declarations in CORBA3.0.2 Chapter 9(with editorial update version) 1?page 9-10: the idl declaration of DynAnyFactory is not the same as the idl declared earlier(page 9-9). It seems that three new fuctions have been left out. 2?Page 9-5: DynUnion should have a member fuction is_set_to_default_member, which is declared on page 9-20

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 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

Page: 7-7

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8881
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Office613, S6, NUDT ( DingBo)
  • Summary:

    CORBA3.0.2(formal/02-12-02), chapter 7.2.1, says "The implicit object reference operations non_existent, is_a, repository_id and get_interface may be invoked using DII. No other implicit object reference operations may be invoked via DII." However, I think we should add "get_component" to this list of allowable operations. Or else we can't use some features of CCM via DII, because the implementation of get_component resides on the server side.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 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

NVList Section: 7.5

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8929
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The NVList has a count, which is defined as long, it would be better to make this an unsigned long. This has impact on ORB::create_list, change the type of argumetn count to unsigned long. Also update NVList::get_count to have an unsigned long argument.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Fri, 15 Jul 2005 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

69.3.2.14 The idl Element, page 69-478

  • Key: CORBA34-99
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5519
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    a) Add idl element to implementation element. Why is idl only at the
    softpkg level?
    This is saying that all implementations use the same IDL. This is
    inconsistent with
    descriptor element. An implementation can specify a descriptor, why not
    idl? Cannot
    an implementation use a specific IDL for its implementation?

    b) Why is IDL defined in the software package descriptor instead of the
    CORBA
    Component descriptor?

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Wed, 17 Jul 2002 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

69.3.2.2 The author Element, page 69-474

  • Key: CORBA34-97
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5521
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    Change the format of author to group related authors together from a
    company. One
    does not need the capability to list multiple companies and web sites
    together in the
    author element, since there can be many authors listed in the softpkg
    element. The
    suggested elements cardinality changes will make parsing the XML much
    simpler
    and reduce code footprint, and the XML more understandable.
    Current format

    <!ELEMENT author
    ( name

    company
    webpage
    )* >

    New format

    <!ELEMENT author
    ( name*
    , company?
    , webpage?
    )>

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Wed, 17 Jul 2002 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

Descriptor

  • Key: CORBA34-98
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5520
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    How does the Assembly Descriptor support multiple components within an
    implementation?

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Wed, 17 Jul 2002 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

69.3.2.15 The implementation Element, pages 69-478/479

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5517
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    Add license element to implementation element. Why is the license element
    restricted
    to the softpkg level only? This is saying all implementations have the same
    license.
    Cannot each implementation have its own different license? Suggest adding
    license
    element to implementation element.

    Current Format

    <!ELEMENT implementation
    ( description

    code
    compiler
    dependency
    descriptor
    extension
    programminglanguage
    humanlanguage
    os
    propertyfile
    processor
    runtime
    )* >
    <!ATTLIST implementation
    id ID #IMPLIED
    variation CDATA #IMPLIED >

    New Format

    <!ELEMENT implementation
    ( description

    code
    compiler
    dependency
    descriptor
    extension
    license
    programminglanguage
    humanlanguage
    os
    propertyfile
    processor
    runtime
    )* >
    <!ATTLIST implementation
    id ID #IMPLIED
    variation CDATA #IMPLIED >
  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Wed, 17 Jul 2002 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

69.3.2.25 The propertyfile Element, page 69-482

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5518
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    Propertyfile clarification is needed for consistent behavior.
    The only statement made about propertyfile is that the implementation's
    propertyfile
    has precedence over the same propertyfile types at the softpkg level. Why
    are
    multiple property files needed at the softpkg and implementation levels? If
    more than
    one propertfile exist at any level, which property file has precedence in
    the list? If
    multiple property files exists are they merged together? Are the softpkg's
    descriptor
    element property files merge with the softpkg property files and which one
    has
    precedence? Are the implementation's descriptor property files merge with
    the
    implementation property files, and which one has precedence? Are
    implementation
    property files merge with the softpkg property files?

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Wed, 17 Jul 2002 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

69.8.2.7 The code Element, pages 69-474

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5516
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    a) Add the optional stacksize and priority elements to code element
    definition. The
    stack size and priority are options parameters for an operating system's
    execute()
    operation. The stack size is the memory space needed by the executable and
    the OS
    priority for the executable. Data types for the values of these options are
    unsigned
    long. Priority number should be based upon industry standard such as POSIX.

    Current Format

    <!ELEMENT code
    ( ( codebase

    fileinarchive
    link
    )
    , entrypoint?
    , usage?
    ) >
    <!ATTLIST code
    type CDATA #IMPLIED >

    New Format for code

    <!ELEMENT code
    ( ( codebase

    fileinarchive
    link
    )
    , entrypoint?
    , stacksize?
    , priority?
    , usage?
    ) >
    <!ATTLIST code
    type CDATA #IMPLIED >

    <!ELEMENT stacksize (#PCDATA)>

    <!ELEMENT priority (#PCDATA)>

    b) Other valid values for type attribute
    Additional valid values for the type attribute are: "KernelModule",
    "SharedLibrary", and "Driver".

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Wed, 17 Jul 2002 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

69.3.2.15 The implementation Element, pages 69-478/479

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5515
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    Implementation Element Cardinality. Why does it make sense to have an empty
    implementation or to allow multiple elements such as code, description,
    humanlanguage, or to have no code? Suggested changes are to place the
    correct
    cardinality on the implementation elements. The suggested elements
    cardinality
    changes will make parsing the XML much simpler and reduce code footprint,
    and the
    XML more understandable.

    Current Format

    <!ELEMENT implementation
    ( description

    code
    compiler
    dependency
    descriptor
    extension
    programminglanguage
    humanlanguage
    os
    propertyfile
    processor
    runtime
    )* >
    <!ATTLIST implementation
    id ID #IMPLIED
    variation CDATA #IMPLIED >

    Suggested New Format for implementation

    • Zero or one description, the CAD and CORBA Components DTDs define the
      description this way.
    • Zero or one property file reference. Why are multiple property files
      needed?
    • One code element is required for a given implementation
    • Zero or one complier element. A given source code element is compiled
      by a
      specific compiler. Specifying the compiler is optional.
    • Zero or one programminglanguage element. Specifying the
      programminglanguage is optional.
    • Zero or one humanlanguage element. Specifying the humanlanguage is
      optional.
    • Zero or more dependencies for a specific implementation.
    • Zero or more descriptors for a specific implementation. An
      implementation
      may contain multiple different components.
    • Zero or more runtimes. A given code element may be compatible with
      multiple runtime environments.
    • Zero or more os. A given code element may be compatible with multiple
      operating systems.
    • Zero or more processors. A given code element may be compatible with
      multiple processors.
    • Zero or more extensions.

    <!ELEMENT implementation
    ( description?
    , code
    , compiler?
    , humanlanguage?
    , programminglanguage?
    , propertyfile?
    , ( dependency

    descriptor
    extension
    os
    processor
    runtime
    usescomponent
    )*
    )>
    <!ATTLIST implementation
    id ID #IMPLIED
    variation CDATA #IMPLIED >
  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Wed, 17 Jul 2002 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

69.3 Software Package Descriptor

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5514
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    69.3.2.1 The softpkg Root Element, page 69-473
    Softpkg Element Cardinality. Why does it make sense to have an empty
    softpkg
    file or to allow multiple elements such as title, pkgtype, description,
    license, or to
    have no implementations? Suggested changes are to place the correct
    cardinality
    on the softpkg elements to be similar to the CORBA Component and Component
    Assembly Descriptor definitions. The suggested elements cardinality changes
    will
    make parsing the XML much simpler and reduce code footprint, and the XML
    more understandable.

    Current Format

    <!ELEMENT softpkg
    ( title

    pkgtype
    author
    description
    license
    idl
    propertyfile
    dependency
    descriptor
    implementation
    extension
    )* >
    <!ATTLIST softpkg
    name ID #REQUIRED
    version CDATA #OPTIONAL >

    Suggested New Format for Softpkg

    • Zero or one title ? for example, a book only has one title, not
      multiple titles.
    • One or more authors ? for example, a book can have multiple authors,
      but at
      least one.
    • Zero or one description, the CAD and CORBA Components DTDs define the
      description this way.
    • Zero or one package type.
    • Zero or one property file reference. Why are multiple property files
      needed?
    • One or more implementations, since the softpkg is an implementation
      for a
      component definition then it must have at least one implementation.
    • Zero or more dependencies for all implementations.
    • Zero or more descriptors for all implementations. An implementation
      may
      contain multiple different components.
    • Zero or more IDL files for all implementations.
    • Zero or more extensions.

    <!ELEMENT softpkg
    ( title?
    , author+
    , description?
    , propertyfile?
    , license?
    , pkgtype?
    , implementation+
    , ( idl

    dependency
    descriptor
    extension
    )*
    )>
    <!ATTLIST softpkg
    name ID #REQUIRED
    version CDATA #IMPLIED >
  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Wed, 17 Jul 2002 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

Add the capability to define a component artifact property

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5513
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    7. Component Artifact - Add the capability to define a component artifact
    property. For
    example, a logical device component artifact could be used to specify the
    capacity for
    a device or the characteristic of a device. The artifacts for a component
    are referenced
    by a component's implementation dependency for using or deployed on
    relationships.
    The component artifact property could be defined in two ways: 1) a new
    element
    called artifact or modifying the simple definition with optional new
    artifact element.

    Artifacts are simple types. The action element defines the action that can
    be
    performed on an artifact. When a dependency references an artifact with a
    specified value this is the action that can be performed against a
    component's
    artifact. The ID is a DCE UUID to guarantee uniqueness of the artifact
    within the
    system; so 2 different artifacts, which are different, are not viewed to be
    the same
    artifact when they are not. The action denoted as external indicates the
    artifact is
    managed by the component. A referenced value for an artifact would have to
    be
    applied against the component.

    Example 1 of New Artifact Element

    <!ELEMENT artifact
    ( description?
    , simple
    , action
    )>
    <!ATTLIST artifact
    id ID #REQUIRED>

    <!ELEMENT action EMPTY>
    <!ATTLIST action
    type ( eq | ne | gt | lt | ge | le | external ) "external">

    Change properties element to

    <!ELEMENT properties
    ( description?
    , ( simple

    sequence
    struct
    artifact
    valuetype
    )+
    ) >

    Example 2 of Modified Simple Element with new Artifact element

    <!ELEMENT simplekind EMPTY>
    <!ATTLIST simplekind
    kindtype (configure_writeonly | configure_readwrite | execparam |
    query_readonly | factoryparam | artifact) "configure_readwrite">

    <!ELEMENT simple
    ( description?
    , value
    , choices?
    , simplekind*
    , artifact?
    , defaultvalue?
    ) >

    <!ELEMENT artifact
    ( action
    )>
    <!ATTLIST artifact
    id ID #REQUIRED
    action ( eq | ne | gt | lt | ge | le | external ) "external">

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Mon, 15 Jul 2002 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

Test Property - add a test property definition to the properties DTD

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5512
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    This allows one
    to define test properties for a component in a generic way. The Test
    property is based upon simple
    element.

    Add new test element

    <!ELEMENT test
    ( description
    , inputvalue?
    , resultvalue )>
    <!ATTLIST test
    name CDATA #REQUIRED>

    <!ELEMENT inputvalue
    ( simple+ )>

    <!ELEMENT resultvalue
    ( simple+ )>

    Change properties element to:

    <!ELEMENT properties
    ( description?
    , ( simple

    sequence
    struct
    test
    valuetype
    )+
    ) >
  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Mon, 15 Jul 2002 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

69.8.2.9 The sequence Element

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5511
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    Simple Sequence -The current definitions for sequence allow invalid
    definitions to be
    built but be syntactically correct. A better definition for a simple
    sequence would be as
    follows:

    Current sequence element

    <!ELEMENT sequence
    ( description?
    , ( simple*

    struct*
    sequence*
    valuetype*
    )
    ) >
    <!ATTLIST sequence
    name CDATA #IMPLIED
    type CDATA #REQUIRED >

    Change to

    Add a new simplesequence element:

    <!ELEMENT simplesequence
    ( description?,
    , values?
    , choices?
    , range?
    , enumerations?
    , units?
    )>
    <!ATTLIST simplesequence
    name CDATA #IMPLIED
    type ( boolean | char | double | float | short | long | objref |
    octet | string | ulong

    ushort ) #REQUIRED

    <!ELEMENT values
    ( value+
    )>

    Change sequence to:

    <!ELEMENT sequence
    ( description?
    , ( simplesequence

    struct*
    sequence*
    valuetype*
    )
    ) >
    <!ATTLIST sequence
    name CDATA #IMPLIED
    type CDATA #REQUIRED >

    One does not have to keep repeating the same simple definition. This
    definition
    then has the added advantage where simple name attribute can now be made
    mandatory.
    <!ELEMENT simple
    ( description?
    , value
    , choices?
    , defaultvalue?
    ) >
    <!ATTLIST simple
    name CDATA #REQUIRED
    type ( boolean

    char
    double
    float
    short
    long
    objref
    octet
    string
    ulong
    ushort
    ) #REQUIRED >
  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Mon, 15 Jul 2002 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

69.8.2.7 The range Element, pages 69-537/538

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5509
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    Range Element - why is the min and max order not specified?
    <!ELEMENT range (value, value) >

    I understand the software logic can do a compare to determine the min and
    max values, but it seems the following definition would be easier to
    understand from human reader.

    Change Range to

    <!ELEMENT range EMPTY>
    <!ATTLIST range
    min CDATA #REQUIRED
    max CDATA #REQUIRED>

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Wed, 24 Jul 2002 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

69.8.2.3 The choices Element, page 69-537

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5510
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    Choices Element - It appears multiple ranges do not make sense for a simple
    definition. If so, then remove the range element from the choices element
    definition
    and make range an optional element for a simple.

    Current definition
    <!ELEMENT choices ( choice | range )+

    Change to

    <!ELEMENT choices ( choice )+

    <!ELEMENT simple
    ( description?
    , value
    , choices?
    , range?
    , defaultvalue?
    ) >

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Mon, 15 Jul 2002 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

lwCCM issues - persistence

  • Key: CORBA34-92
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7128
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.1 "exluding support for Persistence"; there
    are still references to persistence in the following sections:
    4.2 §1, 4.2.1 §1, 4.2.12

    Proposed resolution:

    Add a row in the table 4.1 with :
    "Normative Exclusion" column : Exclude support for persistence
    "Document Impact" column : Section 4.2, paragraph 1: remove reference to
    persistence
    Section 4.2.1, paragraph 1: remove reference to persistence
    Section 4.2.12: remove reference to persistence

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 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

lwCCM issues - security

  • Key: CORBA34-93
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7127
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.5 "exluding support for security", there are
    still references to the security feature in the following sections:
    4.2 (§1), 4.2.1, 4.2.12 (basic), 4.5.1.1 , 4.5.1.5, 4.5.2.5

    Proposed resolution:

    Add a row in the table 4.5 with :
    "Normative Exclusion" column : Exclude support for security
    "Document Impact" column : Section 4.2, paragraph 1: remove reference to
    security
    Section 4.2.1, paragraph 1: remove reference to security
    Section 4.2.12: remove reference to security
    Section 4.5.1.1: remove reference to security
    Section 4.5.1.5: remove reference to security
    Section 4.5.2.5: remove reference to security

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 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

lwCCM issues - entity components

  • Key: CORBA34-91
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7129
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.1 "exluding support for Persistence", row 7;
    there are still references to entity components in the following sections:
    3.3.3.3, 4.5.1.3 (§1), 4.5.2.3 (point 3)

    Proposed resolution:

    Row 7 in the table 4.1, add in the "Document Impact" column :
    Section 3.3.3.3: remove references to entity components
    Section 4.5.1.3, paragraph 1: remove references to entity components
    Section 4.5.2.3, point 3: remove references to entity components

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 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

lwCCM issues - transaction

  • Key: CORBA34-94
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7126
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.4 "exluding support for transaction", there
    are still references to the transaction feature in the following sections:
    4.2 (§1), 4.2.1, 4.2.12 (basic), 4.5.1.1 (point 2), 4.5.1.4, 4.5.2.4

    Proposed resolution:

    Add a row in the table 4.4 with :
    "Normative Exclusion" column : Exclude support for transaction
    "Document Impact" column : Section 4.2, paragraph 1: remove reference to
    transaction
    Section 4.2.1, paragraph 1: remove reference to transaction
    Section 4.2.12: remove reference to transaction
    Section 4.5.1.1, point 2: remove reference to transaction
    Section 4.5.1.4: remove reference to transaction
    Section 4.5.2.4: remove reference to transaction

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 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

LWCCM issue - Section 1.5.3 Exclusion

  • Key: CORBA34-95
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6254
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Objective Interface Systems ( Victor Giddings)
  • Summary:

    On page 11: The Normative Impact "Disable get_connections, get_all_receptacles, get_named_receptacles operations in the Receptacles interface" does not match the Document Impact: "Section 1.5.3: remove". Removal of section 1.5.3 removes the Receptacles interface in it entirety, including the description of the generic connect and disconnect operations, which are referred to by comment in the previous item. The Document Impact needs to be narrowed.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Tue, 16 Sep 2003 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

Checking XML DTD elements related to the trader service

  • Key: CORBA34-71
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5590
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Philippe Merle)
  • Summary:

    In ptc/01-11-03, page 69-533, there is the following note

    Issue The trader elements have to be reviewed to make
    sure that they serve the purpose intended.
    Also, consider using a property file.

    XML DTD elements related to the trader service would be checked

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Thu, 22 Aug 2002 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

Description for the impltype Element?

  • Key: CORBA34-72
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5589
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Philippe Merle)
  • Summary:

    In formal/02-06-65, page 6-54, there is the following text

    Placeholder for future version.

    The section 6.7.2.33 would be written.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Thu, 22 Aug 2002 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

69.3 AssemblyFactory Interface

  • Key: CORBA34-73
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5576
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    Suggested changes to the AssemblyFactory interface.

    AssemblyFactory Issues.

    1. Ease of use Issue. After the create operation is performed, one is
    force to call lookup to get the Assembly that just got just created. Why is
    a cookie returned by the create operation instead of an Assembly? Is the
    reason because of security? If the interface were more open this would
    still allow a secure implementation to be implemented.
    Suggested change is to return an Assembly instead of a Cookie. Change
    destroy operation to take in an Assembly parameter instead of Cookie.
    Change lookup operation to take in a name parameter. These changes
    make it consistent with the other CCM interfaces, such as Container,
    KeyLessCCMHome, ComponentServer, and ServerActivator.
    2. Multiple users Issue. For multiple users, how does a client know what
    assemblies are created. Add a get_assemblies operation that returns a list
    of assemblies. These changes make it consistent with other CCM interfaces,
    such as Container, ComponentServer, and ServerActivator.
    3. User-friendly identifier for Assembly Instance issue. Add an input
    name parameter that can be assigned to the Assembly instance that gets
    created. Add a read only name or label attribute to the Assembly interface.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Thu, 8 Aug 2002 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

Component Artifact Dependency

  • Key: CORBA34-96
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5522
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    An implementation may request a dependency on a specific component based
    upon
    its artifacts. Add artifactdependency to the dependency element.

    Current Format

    <!ELEMENT dependency
    ( softpkgref

    codebase
    fileinarchive
    localfile
    name
    valuetypefactory
    ) >
    <!ATTLIST dependency
    type CDATA #IMPLIED
    action (assert
    install)"assert">

    New Format

    <!ELEMENT dependency
    ( softpkgref

    codebase
    fileinarchive
    localfile
    name
    valuetypefactory
    )
    , artifactdependency*
    >
    <!ATTLIST dependency
    type CDATA #IMPLIED
    action (assert
    install)"assert">

    <!ELEMENT artifactdependency EMPTY>
    <!ATTLIST artifactdependency
    artifactrefid CDATA #REQUIRED
    artifactvalue CDATA #REQUIRED>

    Note: This concept is tied to the concept of component artifact property
    issue. The
    artifactrefid is a reference to a component's artifact property defined in
    a
    component's property file. The artifactvalue is the dependency value being
    requested
    or needed.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Wed, 17 Jul 2002 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

Device Artifact Dependency

  • Key: CORBA34-75
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5523
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    A component's implementation may have additional dependencies on a device's
    artifacts (e.g., capacity and/or characteristics) to ensure the right type
    of device is
    chosen for deployment and/or the device has sufficient capacities for
    deployment. To
    allow for this capability add a deviceartifactdependency element to the
    implementation element.

    Current Format

    <!ELEMENT implementation
    ( description

    code
    compiler
    dependency
    descriptor
    extension
    programminglanguage
    humanlanguage
    os
    propertyfile
    processor
    runtime
    )* >
    <!ATTLIST implementation
    id ID #IMPLIED
    variation CDATA #IMPLIED >

    New Format

    <!ELEMENT implementation
    ( description

    code
    compiler
    dependency
    descriptor
    extension
    programminglanguage
    humanlanguage
    os
    propertyfile
    processor
    runtime
    deviceartifactdependency
    )* >
    <!ATTLIST implementation
    id ID #IMPLIED
    variation CDATA #IMPLIED >

    <!ELEMENT deviceartifactdependency EMPTY>
    <!ATTLIST deviceartifactdependency
    artifactrefid CDATA #REQUIRED
    artifactvalue CDATA #REQUIRED>

    Note: This concept is tied to the concept of component artifact property
    issue. The
    artifactrefid is a reference to a component's artifact property defined in
    a
    component's property file. The artifactvalue is the dependency value being
    requested or needed.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Wed, 17 Jul 2002 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

Uses Relationships

  • Key: CORBA34-74
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5524
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    The softpkg element only deals with deployed on and library load dependency
    relationships for implementations. Component implementations may also have
    specific using relationships with another component, such as a device
    within the
    system. This relationship can be stated at the softpkg or implementation
    level.

    Current Format

    <!ELEMENT softpkg
    ( title

    pkgtype
    author
    description
    license
    idl
    propertyfile
    dependency
    descriptor
    implementation
    extension
    )* >
    <!ATTLIST softpkg
    name ID #REQUIRED
    version CDATA #IMPLIED >

    <!ELEMENT implementation
    ( description

    code
    compiler
    dependency
    descriptor
    extension
    programminglanguage
    humanlanguage
    os
    propertyfile
    processor
    runtime
    )* >
    <!ATTLIST implementation
    id ID #IMPLIED
    variation CDATA #IMPLIED >

    New Format

    <!ELEMENT softpkg
    ( title

    pkgtype
    author
    description
    license
    idl
    propertyfile
    dependency
    descriptor
    implementation
    extension
    usescomponent
    )* >
    <!ATTLIST softpkg
    name ID #REQUIRED
    version CDATA #IMPLIED >

    <!ELEMENT implementation
    ( description

    code
    compiler
    dependency
    descriptor
    extension
    programminglanguage
    humanlanguage
    os
    propertyfile
    processor
    runtime
    usescomponent
    )* >
    <!ATTLIST implementation
    id ID #IMPLIED
    variation CDATA #IMPLIED >

    <!ELEMENT usescomponent
    ( artifactdependency+
    )>
    <!ATTLIST usescomponent
    id ID #REQUIRED
    type CDATA #REQUIRED>

    <!ELEMENT artifactdependency EMPTY>
    <!ATTLIST artifactdependency
    artifactrefid CDATA #REQUIRED
    artifactvalue CDATA #REQUIRED>

    Note: This concept is tied to the concept of component artifact property
    issue. The
    artifactrefid is a reference to a component's artifact property defined in
    a
    component's property file. The artifactvalue is the dependency value being
    requested or needed.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Wed, 17 Jul 2002 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

lwCCM issues - proxy homes

  • Key: CORBA34-80
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7147
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.7 "exluding support for proxy homes", row 1;
    in section 3.2.5, the last paragraph should be removed.

    Proposed resolution:

    Row 1 in the table 4.7, in the "Document Impact", add:
    Section 3.2.5 last paragraph:remove

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 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

lwCCM issues - invalid rows

  • Key: CORBA34-78
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7149
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.7 "exluding support for proxy homes", row 2
    and 3 are not valid

    Proposed resolution:

    remove the rows 2 and 3 of the table 4.7

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 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

Dependency on D+C FTF

  • Key: CORBA34-76
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7363
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    Lightweight CCM replaces CCM's Packaging and Deployment chapter
    with the "Deployment and Configuration of Component-based Distributed
    Applications" (D+C) specification, and thus Lightweight CCM cannot be
    finalized before D+C.

    I propose to defer this issue to a second FTF, to be resolved by the
    availability of D+C.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 19 May 2004 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

lwCCM issues - home finders and finder operations

  • Key: CORBA34-79
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7148
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.8 "exluding support for home finders" there
    are still references to finder operations and home finders in the following
    sections:
    1.7.1 (§2), 1.7.1.1, 1.7.3, 1.7.3.3, 1.7.4 (§1), 1.7.5 (heterodox), 3.3.6
    (point 5), 4.3.2.1 (get_CCM_home), 4.5, 4.5.1 (point 4, last §), 4.5.1.1
    (last point), 4.5.1.2
    The following sections have to be removed:
    1.7.3.2, 4.5.1.3, 4.5.2.3

    Proposed resolution:

    Add a row in the table 4.8 with :
    "Normative Exclusion" column : Exclude support for home finders and finder
    operations
    "Document Impact" column :
    Section 1.7.1, paragraph 2: remove reference to home finders and
    finder operations.
    Section 1.7.1.1: remove reference to home finders and finder
    operations.
    Section 1.7.3: remove reference to home finders and finder
    operations.
    Section 1.7.3.3: remove reference to home finders and finder
    operations.
    Section 1.7.4 paragraph 1: remove reference to home finders and
    finder operations.
    Section 1.7.5 (heterodox): remove reference to home finders and
    finder operations.
    Section 3.3.6, point 5: remove reference to home finders and finder
    operations.
    Section 4.3.2.1 (get_CCM_home): remove reference to home finders and
    finder operations.
    Section 4.5: remove reference to home finders and finder operations.
    Section 4.5.1, point 4 and last paragraph: remove reference to home
    finders and finder operations.
    Section 4.5.1.1, last point: remove reference to home finders and
    finder operations.
    Section 4.5.1.2: remove reference to home finders and finder
    operations.
    Section 1.7.3.2: remove
    Section 4.5.1.3: remove
    Section 4.5.2.3: remove

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 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

lwCCM issues - Entity2Context

  • Key: CORBA34-77
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7150
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.1 "exluding support for Persistence", row 7;
    there are still references to Entity2Context in the following sections:
    3.2.11 (§2)

    Proposed resolution:

    Row 7 in the table 4.1, in the "Document Impact", add:
    Section 3.2.11, paragraph 2:remove reference to the Entity2Context
    interface.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 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

lwCCM issues - Section 4.1

  • Key: CORBA34-82
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7145
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.1 "exluding support for Persistence"; in the
    "Document Impact" column, row 1, the § 3 doesn't exist in the section 1.1.4.

    Proposed resolution:
    Table 4.1, row 1, column "Document Impact": replace "Section 1.1.4,
    paragraph 3: remove" by "Section 1.1.4, paragraph 2: remove"

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 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

lwCCM issues - primary key

  • Key: CORBA34-83
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7144
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.1 "exluding support for Persistence", row 1;
    there are still references to primary key in the following sections:
    1.7.1 (§1 & §3), 1.7.4, 1.7.5.1 (§1, §2), 1.7.5.2 (§1, §2)

    Proposed resolution:

    Row 1 in the table 4.1, add in the "Document Impact" column :
    Section 1.7.1, paragraph 1 and 3: remove references to primary key
    Section 1.7.4: remove references to primary key
    Section 1.7.5.1, paragraph 1and 2: remove references to primary key
    Section 1.7.5.2, paragraph 1and 2: remove references to primary key

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 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

lwCCM issues - configurators

  • Key: CORBA34-81
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7146
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.6 "exluding support for configurators";
    there are still references to configurators in the following sections:
    1.10.2 (second point), 1.10.2.1 (§2), 1.11.1 (configuration_complete)

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 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

lwCCM issues - CIDL

  • Key: CORBA34-87
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7133
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.1 "exluding support for Persistence", row 2;
    and the table 4.3 "exluding support for segmentation", row 1: there are
    still references to CIDL in the following sections:
    1.5.2.1 (§1), 3.1 (§1)

    Proposed resolution:

    Row 2 in the table 4.1 and Row 1 in the table 4.3, add in the "Document
    Impact" column :
    Section 1.2.2.1, paragraph 1: remove references to CIDL
    Section 3.1, paragraph 1: remove references to CIDL

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 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

lwCCM issues - locator

  • Key: CORBA34-86
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7141
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.3 "exluding support for segmentation", row
    3; there are still references to locator in the following sections:
    3.3.3.5, paragraph 4 and last paragraph

    Proposed resolution:

    Row 3 in the table 4.3, in the "Document Impact", add:
    Section 3.3.3.5, paragraph 4 and last paragraph: remove references to
    locator

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 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

lwCCM issues - segmentation

  • Key: CORBA34-85
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7142
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.3 "exluding support for segmentation", there
    are still references to segmentation in the following sections:
    : 3.2.1.6 (§1), 3.2.11 (§1), 3.2.9 (point 2), 4.2.12 (extended)

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 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

lwCCM issues - abstract storage type

  • Key: CORBA34-89
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7131
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.1 "exluding support for Persistence", row 4;
    there are still references to abstract storage type in the following
    sections:
    3.2.2 (§2), 3.2.6, 3.2.9 (point 4)

    Proposed resolution:

    Row 4 in the table 4.1, add in the "Document Impact" column :
    Section 3.2.2, paragraph 2: remove references to abstract storage type
    Section 3.2.6: remove references to abstract storage type
    Section 3.2.9, point 4: remove references to abstract storage type

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 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

lwCCM issues - section 4.1.2

  • Key: CORBA34-90
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7130
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.1 "exluding support for Persistence", row 7;
    the section 4.1.2 doesn't have to be fully removed. Only the references to
    entiy container have to.

    Proposed resolution:

    Row 7 in the table 4.1, add in the "Document Impact" column, replace
    "Section 4.1.2: remove" by "Section 4.1.2: remove reference to entity
    container API types".

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 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

lwCCM issues - get_all_facet, ...

  • Key: CORBA34-84
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7143
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.2 "exluding support introspection,
    navigation, ...", row 2; there are still references to these operations in
    the following sections:
    1.4.3, point 3 and 4, section 1.4.3.4, paragraph 1

    Proposed resolution:

    Row 2 in the table 4.2, in the "Document Impact", add:
    Section 1.4.3, point 3 and 4: remove references to these operations
    Section 1.4.3.4, paragraph 1: remove references to these operations

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 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

lwCCM issues - abstract storage home

  • Key: CORBA34-88
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7132
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Olivier Hachet)
  • Summary:

    This issue concerns the table 4.1 "exluding support for Persistence", row 3;
    there are still references to abstract storage homes in the following
    sections:
    1.7.4, 3.2.5 (§4), 3.2.6

    Proposed resolution:

    Row 3 in the table 4.1, add in the "Document Impact" column :
    Section 1.7.4: remove references to storage home
    Section 3.2.5, paragraph 4: remove references to abstract storage home
    Section 3.2.6: remove references to abstract storage home

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 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

'local executor mapping'

  • Key: CORBA34-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5937
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    @@ It seems to me that generating 'local executor mapping' for supported
    by a component interfaces is not needed. Even though spec doesn't say
    directly that it's needed or not there are plenty of examples where it is
    shown generated.

    @@ According to the spec the following IDL is valid

    interface I;
    component C

    { provides I i; };


    while this is not:


    interface I;
    component C
    { uses I i; };


    Any reason for that?


    @@ According to the spec Home cannot be forward-declared. Any reason
    for that?



    @@ The following CIDL is legal according to the spec:


    interface I;
    component C
    { provides I i; }

    ;

    home H manages C
    {
    };

    composition session Impl
    {
    home executor H_Exec

    { implements H; manages C_Exec; };
    };


    However there is no way to generate valid local executor mapping for this
    CIDL. The resolution would be to require all forward-declared interfaces
    used by component's provides declarations to be defined before composition
    for this component is seen. I.e. the following CIDL would be a corrected
    version:


    interface I;
    component C
    { provides I i; };


    home H manages C
    {
    };


    interface I {};


    composition session Impl
    {
    home executor H_Exec
    { implements H; manages C_Exec; }

    ;
    };

    @@ The following legal according to the spec IDL:

    module M
    {
    module Components
    {
    struct EnterpriseComponent {};
    };

    component C {};
    };

    would result in local executor mapping that looks something like this:

    module M
    {
    module Components
    {
    struct EnterpriseComponent {};
    };

    component C {};
    };

    module M
    {
    local interface C : Components::EnterpriseComponent {};
    };

    which is illegal IDL. The resolution would be to require names like
    Components::EnterpriseComponent to be fully qualified e.g.
    ::Components::EnterpriseComponent.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Wed, 7 May 2003 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

Section 6.4.5.26 and Section 6.4.5.30 should be moved to section 6.3

  • Key: CORBA34-59
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5903
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Tech-X ( Nanbor Wang)
  • Summary:

    To maintain a consistent style and to provide a detailed
    description in an XML element's first appearance, Section 6.4.5.26
    and Section 6.4.5.30 should be moved under Section 6.3 and changed
    to referring them back to the corresponding subsections like
    Section 6.4.5.29 does.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 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

issue on component supporting abstract interfaces

  • Key: CORBA34-58
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5910
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Laboratoire d`Informatique Fondamentale de Lille ( Raphael Marvie)
  • Summary:

    The following information is sent in order for the specification to
    clearly state if components and local interfaces can support abstract
    interfaces (the specification is confusing on this point).

    CORBA 3.0.1 does not explicitely states if a component can support an
    abstract interface, thus it can be considered that it is possible. If so
    a big problem arises as local interfaces inheriting abstract ones is
    confusing in the specification.

    In addition, it is neither explicitely stated that provides and uses
    declarations can or cannot be of types defined through abstract
    interfaces. It does not seem to make sense for a port to be an abstract
    type. Facets will never be used by value, and an operation cannot
    (should not) return the reference of a facet or a valuetype (which would
    be in favor of provides to be defined using abstract interfaces).

      • Problem

    Consider the following definitions which are correct regarding
    formal/02-12-06:

    /* omg idl3 */

    abstract interface I

    { void foo () ; } ;


    component C supports I {
    } ;


    The mapping to OMG IDL2 of these definitions is not correct right now as
    they become:


    /* omg idl2 */


    abstract interface I { void foo () ; }

    ;

    interface C : Components::CCMObject, I { } ;

    local interface CCM_C : I { } ;

    According to formal/02-12-06, the last line may not be correct. Local
    interfaces may not inherit abstract interfaces (section 10.5.28). (I use
    may as it is confusing and can lead to various understanding of the
    spec.)

      • Potential solutions:

    1. State in the CORBA 3.0.1 that components cannot support abstract
    interfaces. In favor: Could ne considered as a minor change. Against: a
    component reference cannot be returned by an operation that can return
    an object by value or by reference. This solution looks cleaner that the
    second one from a software engineering point of view.

    2. Clearly state that components and local interfaces can support
    abstract interfaces. This use may be surprising from a software
    engineering point of view, but may be important for some users. This
    bring back the debate "quality vs powerfulness".

    In any case, I think it should be clearly stated if local interfaces may
    or may not inherit abstract ones.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Wed, 23 Apr 2003 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

CCM Spec: attributes are listed in the ports section?

  • Key: CORBA34-57
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5918
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Craig Rodrigues)
  • Summary:

    In section 1.1.2 of the CCM specification:

    1.1.2 Ports
    ===========
    ..... The component model supports four basic kinds of ports:

    • Facets
    • Receptacles
    • Event sources
    • Event sinks
    • Attributes

    Well, that list includes five things, not four.

    So, is an attribute considered a port or not?

    The wording in this section needs to be clarified in the CCM
    specification, because it is not clear if an attribute
    is a port or not.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 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

Section 6.4.5.10 (page 6-26)

  • Key: CORBA34-60
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5902
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Tech-X ( Nanbor Wang)
  • Summary:

    Section 6.4.5.10 (page 6-26): one of the child elements of the
    "containermanagedpersistence" element is "psstransactionpolicy" where
    it should have been "psstransaction" instead (see Section 6.4.5.40
    on page 6-34 and Section 7.2 on page 7-6 and 7-7).

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 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

Section 6.4.5.52 (page 6-38)

  • Key: CORBA34-61
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5900
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Tech-X ( Nanbor Wang)
  • Summary:

    1. Section 6.4.5.52 (page 6-38): It says the the "storagehome" element
    is a child element of "segment" where it should really say it is a
    child element of "containermanagedpersistence" instead.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 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

multiple lifetime policies declaration issue

  • Key: CORBA34-64
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5870
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Nawel Sabri)
  • Summary:

    In section 4.2.5 of the CCM spec formal/02-06-65, it is said that "Servant lifetime policies may be defined for each segment within a component", but there is no way to do it. Lifetime policy is declared in the CCD descriptor of the component, as an attribute of the "servant" XML element, and is implicitly applied on all the segments of the component(when it is segmented) !

    Suggested resolution: to leave the servant element as it is, expressing a DEFAULT lifetime policy, and to add the same servant element as an optional child of the segment element. This will specify the lifetime policy of the segment and override the defautl one. DTD has to be changed as follows :

    <!ELEMENT segment
    ( segmentmember+
    , containermanagedpersistence?
    , extension*
    >
    <!ATTLIST segment
    name CDATA #REQUIRED
    segmenttag CDATA #REQUIRED >

    becomes:

    <!ELEMENT segment
    ( segmentmember+
    , servant?
    , containermanagedpersistence?
    , extension*
    >
    <!ATTLIST segment
    name CDATA #REQUIRED
    segmenttag CDATA #REQUIRED >

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Tue, 25 Feb 2003 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

CCM spec: insufficient examples of component attributes

  • Key: CORBA34-62
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5898
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Craig Rodrigues)
  • Summary:

    In OMG document formal/02-06-65, in section "1.3.3 Component Body", there
    is this text:

    "Declarations for facets, receptacles, event sources, event sinks,
    and attributes all map onto operations on the component's equivalent
    interface. These declarations and their meanings are described in
    detail below."

    In the following sections, I see facets, receptacles, event sources,
    and event sinks described, but I see no mention of attributes.
    It would be usefult to have an example of attributes in an appropriate
    place, as outlined by section 1.3.3.

    In section "1.10 Configuration with Attributes", I see that configurators
    are described, but I see no example of using attributes directly
    to configure a component.

    It would be very useful to include a small example to illustrate
    how to configure a component directly by using attributes.

    Diego Sevilla Ruiz <dsevilla@ditec.um.es> gave this
    C++ example on the CCM mailing list ( http://moriarty.dif.um.es/mailman/listinfo/ccm ):

    ======================================================

    component Whatever

    { attribute long cacheMaxKb; }

    ;

    home WhateverHome manages Whatever
    {
    };

    // C++
    WhateverHome_var weh = // obtain ref
    Whatever_var we = weh->create();

    we->cacheMaxKb(200);

    we->configuration_complete();

    ======================================================

    I don't suggest that this example be used verbatim,
    but a similar example would be useful to have in the
    CCM spec.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 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

Issue on the description of the consumesidentifier element

  • Key: CORBA34-67
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5684
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Philippe Merle)
  • Summary:

    Proposed resolution:

    In the Adopted CORBA Components Specification (formal/02-06-65),
    section 6.7.2.15, page 6-50, replace 'consumingcomponent' by
    'consumesport'.

    Proposed revised text:

    In formal/02-06-65 page 6-50, replace
    A child of consumingcomponent
    by
    A child of consumesport

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Mon, 14 Oct 2002 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

A new exception specification is needed for CCM2Context::req_passivate()

  • Key: CORBA34-68
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5639
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Hakim Souami)
  • Summary:

    Document ptc/2001-11-03, CORBA Component Model
    ----------------------------------------------
    62.4.1.1 The CCM2Context Interface
    ....
    local interface CCM2Context : CCMContext

    { HomeRegistration get_home_registration (); void req_passivate () raises (PolicyMismatch); CatalogBase get_persistence (in _TypeId catalog_type_id) raises (PersistenceNotAvailable); }

    ;

    ....
    req_passivate
    The req_passivate operation is used by the component to inform the container
    that it wishes to be passivated when its current operation completes. To be
    valid, the component must have a servant lifetime policy of component or
    container. If not, the PolicyMismatch exception shall be raised.
    ----------------------------------------------

    What happens if req_passivate() operation is not called in the scope of a
    callback operation?
    I think that req_passivate() can only make sense if called in the context of
    a callback operation. The IllegalState exception is appropriate for this
    case.

    The IDL might then look like this :
    void req_passivate () raises (IllegalState,PolicyMismatch);

    and the following sentence might be appended to the paragraph above:
    "If this operation is issued outside of the scope of a callback operation,
    the IllegalState exception is returned."

    This addition will ease implementation of CCM2Context objects based on
    POACurrent : implementing container and component servant lifetime policies
    on a POA with RETAIN servant retention policy and the other servant lifetime
    policies on a POA with NON_RETAIN servant retention policy can rely entirely
    on the POACurrent.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Fri, 6 Sep 2002 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

Derived component supported interface restriction (formal/2002-06-65)

  • Key: CORBA34-66
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5688
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Computational Physics, Inc. ( J. Scott Evans)
  • Summary:

    Both the CORBA spec (formal/02-06-01 page 3-61) and the CCM spec (formal/02-06-65 page 1-51) state that "A derived component type may not directly support an interface." Moreover the sentence you depicted is a contradiction with the formal/02-06-65 section 1.3.2.4 page 1-7.

    Resolution:

    In formal/02-06-65 page 1-51 and formal/02-06-01 page 3-61 replace the sentence

    "A derived component type may not directly support an interface."

    with

    "If a derived component type directly supports one or more IDL interfaces, the component interface is derived from both the interface of its base component type and the supported interfaces."

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 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

CCM IDL style inconsistency

  • Key: CORBA34-65
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5858
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:
    • document : formal/02-06-65
    • chapter : 1.5.2.4
    • text in question :

    module Components
    {
    valuetype Cookie

    { private CORBA::OctetSeq cookieValue; }

    ;
    };

    • Issues :

    1. Naming style used in this definition violates rules defined in
    "OMG IDL Style Guide" (ab/98-06-03).

    2. Naming style used in this definition is inconsistent with other parts
    of the CCM IDL, for example:

    module Components
    {
    valuetype PortDescription

    { public FeatureName name; public CORBA::RepositoryId type_id; }

    ;

    valuetype FacetDescription : PortDescription

    { public Object facet_ref; }

    ;
    }

    • suggested resolution : replace `cookieValue' with `cookie_value'
  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Wed, 12 Feb 2003 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

[CCM] Interface Repository Metamodel

  • Key: CORBA34-69
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5594
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    in the BaseIDL there is a class StructDef which has the Attribute members of
    Type Field. How can I model a IDL struct with more than one entry?
    I think there should be a aggregation from StructDef (1<>----->*) to the Field
    class (Page 8-10 of the CCM Spec).

    *) With EnumDef there is the same problem, I guess a assotiation from EnumDef to
    string (1<>----->*) would solve it (Page 8-10 of the CCM Spec).

    *) Also with ExceptionDif and its attribute members (Page 8-11 of the CCM Spec).

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Mon, 26 Aug 2002 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

Using Configurator on CCMHome or any CORBA objects?

  • Key: CORBA34-70
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5591
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Philippe Merle)
  • Summary:

    In ptc/01-11-03, page 69-545, there is the following note

    Issue The Configurator interface takes an argument of type
    CCMObject and therefore cannot be used to configure component
    homes. I see no reason not to widen the type to CORBA::Object
    so that the Configurator can be used for objects other than
    CCMObjects. The StandardConfigurator is after all a basic name
    value pair configurator that simply executes calls on mutator
    operations resulting from attribute declarations. J.S.E.

    The Configurator interface could be updated to allow configuration
    of any CORBA objects.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Thu, 22 Aug 2002 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

Contradictory sections in the CCM and Lightweight CCM specifications

  • Key: CORBA34-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10142
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Micro Focus ( Simon McQueen)
  • Summary:

    I'd like to report an issue that exists in both the CORBA Component Model Specification (formal/06-04-01) and also the Lightweight CORBA Component Model specification (ptc/04-06-10) please.

    In section "6.11 Component Inheritance" of formal/06-04-01 there is the statement : "A derived component type may not directly support an interface."

    This same statement is made in "1.11 Component Inheritance" of ptc/04-06-10 and in "3.17.2.3 Component Inheritance" of the CORBA 3.0.3 spec (04-03-02).

    But, in both "6.3.2.4 Inheritance and supported interfaces" of formal/06-04-01 and "1.3.2.4 Inheritance and supported interfaces" of ptc/04-06-10 there is the following:

    "For a component declaration with the following form:

    component <component_name> : <base_name>
    supports <interface_name_1>, <interface_name_2>

    { … };


    the equivalent interface shall have the following form:
    interface <component_name>
    : <base_name>, <interface_name_1>, <interface_name_2> { … }

    ;"

    The above example is giving equivalent IDL for a declaration that the preceding statements regarding component inheritance say is not permitted. It should presumably be removed.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 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

"supports" keyword

  • Key: CORBA34-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9174
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: nudt ( jhuang)
  • Summary:

    Issue: It is good to let CCM component definition can have operations directly, but not indirectly by "supports" keyword. The "supports" adds too much complexity when defining a compoment and compiler implementation

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Fri, 18 Nov 2005 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

HomeExecutorBase should have a set_context method

  • Key: CORBA34-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7733
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: National Lab, Distributed Process, China ( Deng Bo)
  • Summary:

    Home executor cann't access context object. Thus some features like SMP(Self-Management Persistence) are not enabled.

    Resolution:

    Replace the following text in formal/02-06-05 on page 3-40

    module Components {
    local interface HomeExecutorBase {};
    };

    with

    module Components {
    local interface HomeExecutorBase

    { void set_context(in CCMContext con); }

    ;
    };

    and add the operation description

    set_context

    Set context object for home executor.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 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

add some feature to let an assembly look like a monolithic compoment

  • Key: CORBA34-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9173
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: nudt ( jhuang)
  • Summary:

    It is better to add some feature to let an assembly look like a monolithic compoment. For example, add some discriptions in CAD(compoment assembly discription) file to identify the external interface of an assembly. There exists an delegate compoment behaving like the assembly. It can navigate one external interface of an assembly to another. This delegate compoment can be created by main component server automatically according to the CAD file.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Fri, 18 Nov 2005 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

Generic connectivity for Receptacles, Emitters, Publishers

  • Key: CORBA34-49
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7556
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    The CCMObject interface contains numerous operations for generic
    connection management (in addition to the type-specific operations
    defined by equivalent IDL for a component).

    However, there's a separate set of "connect" and "disconnect"
    operations for each kind of port, i.e., receptacles, emitters and
    publishers. This is inconvenient for generic software that treats
    ports generically, such as the deployment infrastructure in an
    implementation of the Deployment and Configuration specification.

    The set of operations might even get larger in the future, when
    Streams for CCM becomes available.

    I thus propose to add generic "connect_feature" and "disconnect_
    feature" operations that is able to interconnect compatible ports
    regardless of the type of port.

    Proposed resolution:

    In section 1.11.1, "CCMObject Interface," add the following two
    operations to the CCMObject interface:

    module Components {
    interface CCMObject : Navigation, Receptacles, Events

    { Cookie connect_feature (in FeatureName name, in Object connection) raises (InvalidName, InvalidConnection, AlreadyConnected, ExceededConnectionLimit); void disconnect_feature (in FeatureName name, in Cookie ck) raises (InvalidName, InvalidConnection, CookieRequired, NoConnection); /* other operations as before */ }

    ;
    };

    Add the following explanation to the same section:

    connect_feature

    The connect_feature operation connects the object reference
    specified by the connection parameter to the component feature
    specified by the name parameter. The feature must be either a
    receptacle, emitter or publisher port.

    If the feature identified by the name parameter is a receptacle
    port, the connect_feature operation acts equivalent to calling
    the connect operation on the Receptacles interface.

    If the feature identified by the name parameter is an emitter
    port, the connect_feature operation acts equivalent to calling
    the connect_consumer operation on the Events interface. A nil
    "cookie" value is returned.

    If the feature identified by the name parameter is a publisher
    port, the connect_feature operation acts equivalent to calling
    the subscribe operation on the Events interface.

    If the feature identified by the name parameter is neither
    receptacle, emitter or publisher port, or if the component does
    not have any feature by that name, the InvalidName exception is
    raised.

    disconnect_feature

    The disconnect_feature operation dissolves the connection
    identified by the ck cookie to the component feature specified
    by the name parameter.

    If the feature identified by the name parameter is a receptacle
    port, the disconnect_feature operation acts equivalent to calling
    the disconnect operation on the Receptacles interface.

    If the feature identified by the name parameter is an emitter
    port, the disconnect_feature operation raises the InvalidConnection
    exception if a non-nil cookie is passed as the ck parameter;
    otherwise, it acts equivalent to calling the disconnect_consumer
    operation on the Events interface.

    If the feature identified by the name parameter is a publisher
    port, the disconnect_feature operation acts equivalent to calling
    the unsubscribe operation on the Events interface.

    If the feature identified by the name parameter is neither
    receptacle, emitter or publisher port, or if the component does
    not have any feature by that name, the InvalidName exception is
    raised.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Thu, 1 Jul 2004 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

The association of entity component primary key and PSS key is unclear

  • Key: CORBA34-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6684
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: National Lab, Distributed Process, China ( Deng Bo)
  • Summary:

    Issue: The association of entity component primary key and PSS key is unclear. There is only one attribute as the primary key in the CCM entity component, PSS has no primary key. An entity can be identified uniquely by the PSS key, but currently PSS permits several keys, and each PSS key can be composed of several attributes. Consequently, it is difficult to establish association between entity component primary key and PSS key, and the create and find methods can not to be mapped to the corresponding methods of PSS.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Sat, 6 Dec 2003 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

EnterpriseComponent should have a set_persistent_object method

  • Key: CORBA34-48
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7732
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: National Lab, Distributed Process, China ( Deng Bo)
  • Summary:

    There is no standard way for container to intercept component state management.
    By which container can implement O/R mapping and management component states.

    Resolution:

    Container can intercept state management by provide a storage object for executor segment.
    Replace the following text in formal/02-06-05 on page 3-39

    module Components
    {
    local interface EnterpriseComponent
    {

    };
    };

    with

    module Components
    {
    local interface EnterpriseComponent

    { void set_persistent_object(in StorageObjectBase); }

    ;
    };

    and add the operation description

    set_persistent_object

    Set context object for executors

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 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

EnterpriseComponent should have a get_servant method

  • Key: CORBA34-51
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6688
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

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

    Resolution:

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

    module Components {
    local interface EnterpriseComponent {};
    };

    with

    module Components {
    local interface EnterpriseComponent

    { Servant get_servant() raises (CCMException); }

    ;
    };

    and add the operation description

    get_servant

    The get_servant operation returns a reference to the servant.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Fri, 5 Dec 2003 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

HomeExecutorBase should have a get_servant method

  • Key: CORBA34-50
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6689
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

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

    Resolution:

    Replace the following text in formal/02-06-05 on page 3-40

    module Components {
    local interface HomeExecutorBase {};
    };

    with

    module Components {
    local interface HomeExecutorBase

    { Servant get_servant() raises (CCMException); }

    ;
    };

    and add the operation description

    get_servant

    The get_servant operation returns a reference to the servant.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Fri, 5 Dec 2003 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

HomeExecutorBase should have a get_servant method

  • Key: CORBA34-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6673
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: National Lab. on Distributed Processing of P.R.China ( Deng Bo)
  • Summary:

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

    Resolution:

    Replace the following text in formal/02-06-05 on page 3-40

    module Components { local interface HomeExecutorBase {}; };

    with

    module Components { local interface HomeExecutorBase

    { Servant get_servant() raises (CCMException); }

    ; };

    and add the operation description

    get_servant

    The get_servant operation returns a reference to the servant.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Thu, 4 Dec 2003 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

portability of CCM descriptors

  • Key: CORBA34-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6286
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Laboratoire d`Informatique Fondamentale de Lille ( Sylvain Leblanc)
  • Summary:

    Identifier (FPI).

    These FPIs are required for the CAD, CSD, CCD and CPF DTDs.

    Proposed resolution:

    Adds the CCM DTDs on the OMG web site and adds the following text in the specification:

    • section 6.3, before subsection 6.3.1 :

    The CORBA Software Descriptor must refer to the DTD using the following statement: <!DOCTYPE softpkg PUBLIC "-//OMG//DTD CORBA Software Descriptor 3.0//EN" "http://www.omg.org/dtd/softpkg_3_0.dtd" />

    • section 6.4, before subsection 6.4.1 :

    The CORBA Component Descriptor must refer to the DTD using the following statement: <!DOCTYPE corbacomponent PUBLIC "-//OMG//DTD CORBA Component Descriptor 3.0//EN" "http://www.omg.org/dtd/corbacomponent_3_0.dtd" />

    • section 6.4.4:

    replace

    <!DOCTYPE corbacomponent SYSTEM "corbacomponen.tdtd">

    with

    <!DOCTYPE corbacomponent PUBLIC "-//OMG//DTD CORBA Component Descriptor 3.0//EN" "http://www.omg.org/dtd/corbacomponent_3_0.dtd" />

    • section 6.7, before subsection 6.7.1 :

    The Component Assembly Descriptor must refer to the DTD using the following statement: <!DOCTYPE componentassembly PUBLIC "-//OMG//DTD Component Assembly Descriptor 3.0//EN" "http://www.omg.org/dtd/componentassembly_3_0.dtd" />

    • section 6.7.1:

    replace

    <!DOCTYPE componentassembly SYSTEM "componentassembly.dtd">

    with

    <!DOCTYPE componentassembly PUBLIC "-//OMG//DTD Component Assembly Descriptor 3.0//EN" "http://www.omg.org/dtd/componentassembly_3_0.dtd" />

    • section 6.8, before subsection 6.8.1 :

    The Component Property File must refer to the DTD using the following statement: <!DOCTYPE properties PUBLIC "-//OMG//DTD Component Property File 3.0//EN" "http://www.omg.org/dtd/properties_3_0.dtd" />

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Wed, 1 Oct 2003 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

The D&C IDL part doesn't match 06-04-02.

  • Key: CORBA34-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10582
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The D&C IDL part doesn't match 06-04-02. For example TargetManager is not correctly in 06-04-01 and has its errors in 06-04-02

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 9 Jan 2007 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

CCMHome should have a get_components method

  • Key: CORBA34-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6438
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Computational Physics, Inc. ( J. Scott Evans)
  • Summary:

    The CCMHome interface does not provide a mechanism for obtaining references to all CCMObjects that the home has created (those that have not been removed). The lack of a method to get all the components created by a home is inconsistent with other sections of the CCM model (specifically the deployment module APIs). Furthermore, this method would be very useful as it would provide a mechanism for querying a Container for all existent components.

    Resolution:

    Replace the following text in formal/02-06-05 on page 1-41

    interface CCMHome

    { CORBA::IRObject get_component_def(); CORBA::IRObject get_home_def (); void remove_component ( in CCMObject comp) raises (RemoveFailure); }

    ;

    with

    typedef sequence<CCMObject> CCMObjects;

    interface CCMHome

    { CORBA::IRObject get_component_def(); CORBA::IRObject get_home_def (); void remove_component ( in CCMObject comp) raises (RemoveFailure); CCMObjects get_components(); }

    ;

    and add the operation description

    get_components

    The get_components operation returns a sequence of all existent CCMObject references (i.e. those that have not been removed) created by this CCMHome.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Wed, 5 Nov 2003 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

CCMHome should have a get_container method

  • Key: CORBA34-32
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6001
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Computational Physics, Inc. ( J. Scott Evans)
  • Summary:

    The CCMHome interface does not provide a mechanism for locating the container that created a home. The lack of a method to get a home's container is inconsistent with the rest of the CCM model. Furthermore, this method would be very useful as it would provide a means to navigate from a component to its ServerActivator, which is currently not possible.

    Resolution:

    Replace the following text in formal/02-06-05 on page 1-41

    interface CCMHome

    { CORBA::IRObject get_component_def(); CORBA::IRObject get_home_def (); void remove_component ( in CCMObject comp) raises (RemoveFailure); }

    ;

    with

    interface CCMHome

    { CORBA::IRObject get_component_def(); CORBA::IRObject get_home_def (); void remove_component ( in CCMObject comp) raises (RemoveFailure); Container get_container(); }

    ;

    and add the operation description

    get_container

    The get_container operation returns a reference to the Container object that created this CCMHome

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 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

Session2Context interface

  • Key: CORBA34-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5909
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Computational Physics, Inc. ( J. Scott Evans)
  • Summary:

    The Session2Context interface allows developers to create an object reference from an octet sequence (object id). The the Entity2Context allows developers to create an object reference from a ComponentId. Neither the Session2Context nor the the Entity2Context allows the developer to infer the octet sequence or ComponentId that is associated with an operation invocation on a component. In other words, a developer may use a context to create multiple references that are subsequently invoked by a client. When the client invokes an operation on the reference the component code will be required to satisfy the operation invocation (either through the monolithic or the locator language mapping strategy). There is no information, however, as to which of the created references is being invoked by a client. To resolve the ambiguity the component developer must be able to use the context to provide the current octet sequence or ComponentId corresponding to the reference that is currently being invoked.

    Resolution:

    Replace the following text in formal/02-06-05 on page 4-37

    local interface Session2Context : SessionContext, CCM2Context

    { Object create_ref (in CORBA::RepositoryId repid); Object create_ref_from_oid ( in PortableServer::ObjectIdCORBA::OctetSeq oid, in CORBA::RepositoryId repid); PortableServer::ObjectId CORBA::OctetSeq get_oid_from_ref (in Object objref) raises (IllegalState, BadComponentReference); }

    ;

    with

    local interface Session2Context : SessionContext, CCM2Context

    { Object create_ref (in CORBA::RepositoryId repid); Object create_ref_from_oid ( in PortableServer::ObjectIdCORBA::OctetSeq oid, in CORBA::RepositoryId repid); PortableServer::ObjectId CORBA::OctetSeq get_oid_from_ref (in Object objref) raises (IllegalState, BadComponentReference); CORBA::OctetSeq get_current_oid () raises (IllegalState); }

    ;

    and add the operation description

    get_current_oid

    The get_current_oid operation is used by the component to extract the oid
    associated with the current operation invocation. This operation must be called
    within an operation invocation. If not, the IllegalState exception shall be raised.

    Also, replace the following text in formal/02-06-05 on page 4-44

    local interface Entity2Context : EntityContext, CCM2Context

    { ComponentId get_component_id () raises (IllegalState); ComponentId create_component_id ( in FacetId target_facet, in SegmentId target_segment, in SegmentDescrSeq seq_descrs); ComponentId create_monolithic_component_id ( in FacetId target_facet, in StateIdValue sid); Object create_ref_from_cid ( in CORBA::RepositoryId repid, in ComponentId cid); ComponentId get_cid_from_ref ( in Object objref) raises (BadComponentReference); }

    ;

    with

    local interface Entity2Context : EntityContext, CCM2Context

    { ComponentId get_component_id () raises (IllegalState); ComponentId create_component_id ( in FacetId target_facet, in SegmentId target_segment, in SegmentDescrSeq seq_descrs); ComponentId create_monolithic_component_id ( in FacetId target_facet, in StateIdValue sid); Object create_ref_from_cid ( in CORBA::RepositoryId repid, in ComponentId cid); ComponentId get_cid_from_ref ( in Object objref) raises (BadComponentReference); ComponentId get_current_cid () raises (IllegalState); }

    ;

    and add the operation description

    get_current_cid

    The get_current_cid operation is used by a persistent component to retrieve the
    ComponentId associated with the current operation invocation. This operation must be called
    within an operation invocation. If not, the IllegalState exception shall be raised.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Tue, 22 Apr 2003 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

Generic port connections

  • Key: CORBA34-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5852
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    I propose to introduce generic operations that allow
    interconnecting ports regardless of their type. This
    would ease generic programming.

    The first part of the proposal is to allow generic
    usage of the "connect" and "disconnect" operations
    that are (currently) in the Receptacles interface,
    i.e. to extend the functionality to not only work
    on receptacles, but also on event source ports
    (emits and publishes keywords).

    The names "connect" and "disconnect" are appropriate
    for any kind of port, and their signatures are the
    same as "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" in the Events
    interface.

    The second part of the proposal is to introduce a
    new operation "get_port" into the CCMObject interface.
    This operation would take a FeatureName parameter and
    return the object reference associated with that
    facet or event sink.

    So I propose the following steps:

    1.) Allow connect, disconnect and get_connections to
    operate on event source ports, and introduce a
    get_port operation.
    This change would be backwards compatible.

    2.) Move connect, disconnect and get_connections from
    the now inappropriate Receptacles interface into
    the CCMObject interface. This step might cause
    minor, easily fixable breakage for software that
    widens an object reference to Receptacles instead
    of CCMObject. (I don't think any such software
    exists, it's more of a theoretical issue.)

    3.) Discourage, then remove the "subscribe" and
    "unsubscribe" operations in the Events interface.
    They don't offer any more type safety than connect
    and disconnect.

    I believe that these changes would also be of interest
    for slimming down CCM for the Lightweight CCM RFP, and
    in light of the Streams for CCM RFP (which will likely
    add another port type that needs interconnecting).

    This change does not have any impact on component
    implementations. The change to CCM implementations
    (ORBs) is neglegible (I would expect a day to make
    these changes in MicoCCM, another day to test them).

    If there is general agreement on this issue, I will
    draft the text updates.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Thu, 6 Feb 2003 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

HomeConfigurator should not extend CCMHome

  • Key: CORBA34-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5769
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Computational Physics, Inc. ( J. Scott Evans)
  • Summary:

    Document formal/02-06-05 on page 1-49 states the following:

    "The implementation of a component type's home object may optionally support the
    HomeConfiguration interface. The HomeConfiguration interface is derived from
    Components::CCMHome. In general, the HomeConfiguration interface is
    intended for use by an agent deploying a component implementation into a container,
    or an agent deploying an assembly."

    The first statement does not offer a clear interpretation when considering the language mapping for homes. If the implementation of a component type's home optionally supports HomeConfigurator how is this information defined in IDL? Should the component type's home definition support HomeConfiguration? This would seem to be the proper interpretation but that leads to problems in the language mapping of the defined home. In section 3.3.3.6 on page 3-45

    Home Explicit Executor Interface

    The home explicit executor callback interface is defined by the following rules:

    1. For each home <home name>, a local explicit executor interface with the same
    name as the home, but with a prefix of "CCM_" and a postfix of "Explicit" is
    defined.

    2. The explicit executor interface contains all attributes and operations declared by the
    home.

    3. If the home has a base with a name of <base name>, the explicit executor
    interface inherits CCM_<base name>Explicit. If the home does not have a base,
    the explicit executor interface inherits Components::HomeExecutorBase.

    4. If the home has supported interfaces, they are inherited by the explicit executor
    interface.

    5. Additional operations are added to the explicit executor interface for factories and
    finders, see below.

    Item 4 would imply that the home explicit executor must include operations defined in both HomeConfigurator and CCMHome since HomeConfigurator extends CCMHome. This is clearly not the intended behavior of the home explicit executor since it specifically excludes any direct inheritance of CCMHome.

    Resolution

    The inheritance of CCMHome by HomeConfiguration should be removed since it is implied that every home will extend CCMHome and home definitions in IDL would then be able to explicitly support HomeConfiguration without the extra baggage of the CCMHome interface. Furthermore, the language mapping does not properly handle a component home that supports HomeConfiguration (if it extends CCMHome) since the component executor would include all CCMHome operations. The language mapping would work fine if HomeConfiguration did not extend CCMHome.

    Replace text in formal/02-06-05 on page 1-49

    The implementation of a component type's home object may optionally support the
    HomeConfiguration interface. The HomeConfiguration interface is derived from
    Components::CCMHome. In general, the HomeConfiguration interface is
    intended for use by an agent deploying a component implementation into a container,
    or an agent deploying an assembly.

    with

    The implementation of a component type's home object may optionally support the
    HomeConfiguration interface. In general, the HomeConfiguration interface is
    intended for use by an agent deploying a component implementation into a container,
    or an agent deploying an assembly.

    Replace IDL in formal/02-06-05 on page 1-49

    module Components {
    interface HomeConfiguration : CCMHome

    { void set_configurator (in Configurator cfg); void set_configuration_values ( in ConfigValues config); void complete_component_configuration (in boolean b); void disable_home_configuration(); };
    };


    with


    module Components {
    interface HomeConfiguration { void set_configurator (in Configurator cfg); void set_configuration_values ( in ConfigValues config); void complete_component_configuration (in boolean b); void disable_home_configuration(); }

    ;
    };

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Mon, 2 Dec 2002 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

LwCCM issue - Section 1.6.8 Exclusion

  • Key: CORBA34-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7028
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    While reviewing Victor's issue on section 1.5.3, I noticed
    that a similar problem exists with respect to the Events
    interface.

    While the normative exclusion "disable get_all_consumers
    [...]" (8th row of section 10.3) retains the generic
    get_consumer, subscribe, unsubscribe, connect_consumer
    and disconnect_consumer operations, removing section 1.6.8
    would remove the entire Events interface.

    Proposed resolution:

    In section 10.3, in the "Document Impact" column of the
    8th row, replace the text

    Section 1.6.8: remove

    with

    Section 1.6.8: remove these operations from the Events
    interface. Also remove the ConsumerDescription,
    EmitterDescription, SubscriberDescription and
    PublisherDescription types.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 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

LwCCM issue - Section 1.4.3.3 Exclusion

  • Key: CORBA34-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7027
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    While reviewing Victor's issue on section 1.5.3, I noticed
    that a similar problem exists with respect to the Navigation
    interface.

    While the normative exclusion "disable get_all_facets, get_
    named_facets, same_component operations in Navigation
    interface" retains the generic provide_facet operation,
    removing section 1.4.3.3 would remove the entire Navigation
    interface.

    On the other hand, the still-present section 1.4.3.4 references
    the disabled operations.

    Proposed resolution:

    In section 10.3, in the "Document Impact" column of the second
    row, replace the text

    1.4.3.3: remove

    with

    1.4.3.3: remove these operations from the Navigation
    interface. Also remove the PortDescription, FacetDescription
    and FacetDescriptions types.

    1.4.3.4: remove

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 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

Interface Introspection

  • Key: CORBA34-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6391
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    Inspired by a recent paper by Doug Schmidt and Steve Vinoski
    and the resulting newsgroup discussion on comp.object.corba,
    I have a feature request to introduce a better reflection
    mechanism into CORBA.

    At the moment, there is the CORBA::Object::get_interface()
    operation to access a matching InterfaceDef entry in an
    Interface Repository. Since an Interface Repository is
    seldomly deployed, using this operation is pretty much
    futile and will either return a nil reference or throw
    an exception.

    Therefore, I propose to add a new get_interface_def()
    operation to the Object interface that returns a FullInter-
    faceDef structure, as defined by the Interface Repository.
    This structure contains all that a dynamic client (such as
    the ones proposed by Schmidt&Vinoski, or software like
    CorbaScript or Combat) needs to know about an interface.

    A new _interface_def pseudo-operation then needs to be added
    to GIOP. This could probably be done without a version change,
    as no marshalling changes or new messages are involved, it's
    just another operation.

    On the server side, the IDL compiler would generate a suitable
    implementation as part of the skeleton. This implementation
    could just contain a binary representation of the FullInterface-
    Description structure (just like a "precompiled" TypeCode) that
    is dumped to the GIOP stream. (So that you don't need the
    Interface Repository IDL around.)

    Proposed resolution:

    In chapter 4.3, "Object Reference Operations," add the following
    operation to the Object interface:

    module CORBA {
    interface Object

    { // PIDL ... other operations ... FullInterfaceDescription get_interface_def (); }

    ;
    };

    Add the following explanation to 4.3.1, "Determining the Object
    Interface"

    4.3.1.2 get_interface_def

    FullInterfaceDescription get_interface_def ();

    The get_interface_def operation returns a data structure
    describing the most derived type of the object addressed by
    the reference. The FullInterfaceDescription structure includes
    descriptions of all the operations and attributes in the
    transitive closure of the inheritance graph of the interface
    being described. See the Interface Repository chapter for the
    contents of the data structure. Note that if an Interface
    Repository is not available, object references contained in
    this structure may be nil or inaccessible.

    In chapter 15.4.2, "Request Message", update the text that
    reads

    In the case of CORBA::Object operations that are defined in
    the CORBA Core (Section 4.2, "Object Reference Operations,"
    on page 4-12) and that correspond to GIOP request messages,
    the operation names are _interface, _is_a, _non_existent,
    _domain_managers and _component.

    to read

    In the case of CORBA::Object operations that are defined in
    the CORBA Core (Section 4.2, "Object Reference Operations,"
    on page 4-12) and that correspond to GIOP request messages,
    the operation names are _interface, _is_a, _non_existent,
    _domain_managers, _component or _interface_def.

    In the C++ language mapping, section 1.37.1, "Mapping of
    PortableServer::Servant", add the following operation to
    class ServantBase:

    namespace PortableServer { // C++
    class ServantBase

    { ... other operations ... virtual CORBA::FullInterfaceDescription_ptr _get_interface_def (); }

    ;
    }

    Update the paragraph that reads,

    ServantBase provides default implementations of the
    _get_interface, _is_a and _non_existent object reference
    operations [...]

    to read

    ServantBase provides default implementations of the
    _get_interface, _is_a, _non_existent and _get_interface_def
    object reference operations [...]

    Add a new paragraph,

    For static skeletons, the default implementation of the
    _get_interface_def function returns information about the
    interface associated with the skeleton class. For dynamic
    skeletons, the default implementation uses the
    _get_interface function to determine its return value.

    Other language mappings might need similar updates.

    By the way, since FullInterfaceDescription is only used as
    a return value, only a pointer to FullInterfaceDescription
    is needed. Therefore, you don't need the full Interface
    Repository interface descriptions but only a pointer to an
    incomplete type.

    On the client side, you only need to pull in the Interface
    Repository IDL if you are actually calling _get_interface_def.

    On the server side, the skeleton can do some ORB-dependent
    magic to push a precompiled binary data structure into the
    result.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 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

context interface for home implementation

  • Key: CORBA34-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5936
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS ( Tom Ritter)
  • Summary:

    The home interface could have freely defined operations or can support an
    interface with such operations. A home context interface may help to implement
    such operations. E.g. a home implementation needs this context interface to
    determine its own object reference.

    suggestion:

    Add a home context interface that is similar to the component context interface.
    Add a set_context operation at the HomeExecutorBase interface.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Wed, 7 May 2003 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

GIOP Conformance and Interceptors

  • Key: CORBA34-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6314
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Syracuse University ( Polar Humenn)
  • Summary:

    GIOP Conformance and Interceptor don't play well together.

    GIOP minor version conformance mandates two things.

    1. That standard service contexts that are considered optional
    can be ignored should the implementation not understand them.

    2. That certain service contexts get processed according to the
    specification of where they are defined.

    This requirement works well for GIOP 1.2 where a lot of them are optional,
    since (1) will apply. An implementation can claim 1.2 conformance and not
    process any of them.

    However, 1.3 and upcoming 1.4 will mandate the processing of them
    according to their specification. In many cases, this means that some
    default response may be required, which means that a GIOP 1.3, or later
    engine must have a "default" response for these service contexts.

    In an ORB that uses interceptors and has a generic GIOP messaging engine
    there is no way for the engine to "know" when or not to process a
    particular service context. It requires strict processing by the GIOP
    engine, or it requires "default" interceptors to be installed to maintain
    the level of conformance.

    However, interceptors have no way of "declaring" which service contexts
    they handle, and whether they they are overriding already installed
    (default) interceptors for processing those particular service contexts.

    For example, an non-transactional ORB that is GIOP 1.2 compliant must
    process the Transaction Service Context by raising a
    TRANSACTION_UNAVAILABLE exception, because by default the ORB is in the
    OTS_NOT_CONNECTED state. It cannot be ignored to comply with GIOP 1.2 (but
    by certain in implementations it ALWAYS is). A default interceptor is
    needed in the ORB implementation to do this. However, for an ORB
    configuration that wants to process this, there is no way for an
    interceptor to "override" default processing.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Wed, 8 Oct 2003 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

Chapter/section: 15.4.2.2 "Request Body"

  • Key: CORBA34-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6287
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 2AB ( Carol Burt)
  • Summary:

    Suppose you are sending a request (GIOP 1.2 or 1.3) and the request will
    be fragmented into two segments. The first segment is a Request message
    that has the GIOP Header and part of the Request Header. The second
    segment is a Fragment message that has a GIOP Header, a Fragment Header,
    and the body is the remainder of the Request Header and the Request Body.
    Section 15.4.2.2 of CORBA 3.0 states that the Request Body (in a Request
    Message) should always be aligned on an 8 octet boundary.

    My question is, in the above scenario, where the Request Body begins in
    the Fragment message, should the Request Body be aligned on an 8 octet
    boundary or not? I have not found anything in the specification that
    explicitly says what to do.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Wed, 1 Oct 2003 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

CodeSet and CSIv2 Negotitaion

  • Key: CORBA34-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6283
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Syracuse University ( Polar Humenn)
  • Summary:

    I believe that we send CSIv2 stuff in a GIOP Request until a corresponding
    GIOP reply has been containing corresponding CSIv2 context ids is sent.

    For Codeset, I think the policy is to send the service context in each
    GIOP request until a corresponding GIOP Reply is received, thereby saying
    that the "negotiation" is completed and excepted (otherwise an exception
    will be raised.

    We should probably look at the fact that multiple NSReq messages can be
    sent, and there are no corresponding reply messages depending on the
    service contexts.

    I think that these messages should be intercepted since they are
    delivering service contexts.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Thu, 2 Oct 2003 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

Change new GIOP Negotiate Session Message to Firewall Specific

  • Key: CORBA34-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6285
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Syracuse University ( Polar Humenn)
  • Summary:

    Here is a small proposal for GIOP 1.4 with Firewall and Bidirectional. We
    would get rid of all the weird nasty service contexts and make it
    simplistic. The FireWall messages are only allowed before any other GIOP
    messages. BiDir messages can happen at any time according to their
    protocol.

    What do you think? Asside from some problems I see with BiDir
    offer/challenge/response correlation, it is essentially equivalent to the
    solution proposed in the adopted spec.

    module GIOP {
    enum MsgType_1_4

    { Request, Reply, CancelRequest, LocateRequest, LocateReply, CloseConnection, MessageError, Fragment, // GIOP 1.1 addition // GIOP 1.4 additions FirewallPathRequest, // 8 FirewallPathRepsonse, // 9 BiDirOffer, // 10 BiDirChallenge, // 11 BiDirResponse // 12 }

    ;

    // Firewall Traversal GIOP 1.4

    struct FirewallSpec

    { boolean is_intelligent; IOP::TaggedComponentSeq endpoints; }

    ;
    typedef sequence<FirewallSpec> FirewallPath;

    struct FirewallPathRequestHeader

    { unsigned long host_index; FirewallPath path; }

    ;
    // No body follows.

    enum FirewallPathResponseStatusType

    { NO_EXCEPTION, SYSTEM_EXCEPTION }

    ;

    struct FirewallPathResponseHeader

    { FirewallPathResponseStatusType status; boolean connection_complete; }

    ;
    // Marshalled body immediately follows

    // Bidirectional GIOP 1.4

    // To keep this file uncomplicated we can introduce the
    // headers and put the marshalled bodies in a separate BiDir module
    // Due due some issue about the challege/response protocol for this,
    // there may be a need of an offer_id to correlate them.

    struct BiDirOfferHeader

    { unsigned long offer_id; };
    // Marshalled body immediately follows.


    struct BiDirChallengeHeader { unsigned long offer_id; }

    ;
    // Marshalled body immediately follows.

    struct BiDirResponseHeader

    { unsigned long offer_id; }

    ;
    // Marshalled body immediately follows.
    };

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Thu, 2 Oct 2003 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

15.3.3 - codesets must be "explicitly defined"

  • Key: CORBA34-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6050
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Andrew Piper)
  • Summary:

    For codesets in encapsulations we have:

    15.3.3 - codesets must be "explicitly defined"

    Issue 4824 - "it is an error for a Service Context to depend on information that is not contained within the encapsulation to determine the codeset used within it"

    But in 13.8 there is no prescribed way of "explicitly defining" the codeset.

    Please, please can we simply define that the fallbacks in 13.10.2.6 apply everywhere that the codeset is not known (whether negotiated or not) and be done with it.

    Another alternative would be to add codeset parameters to the encode() and decode() functions of 13.8.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Tue, 26 Aug 2003 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

valuetype fragmentation ambiguous

  • Key: CORBA34-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5941
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Andrew Piper)
  • Summary:

    Although I now think I know the intent of the spec, its is ambiguous if not plain wrong with respect to valuetype fragmentation.

    In particular 15.3.4.6:

    Bullet 1 says:

    "End tags, chunk size tags, and value tags are encoded using non-overlapping ranges
    so that the unmarshaling code can tell after reading each chunk whether:
    • another chunk follows (positive tag).
    • one or multiple value types are ending at a given point in the stream (negative
    tag).
    • a nested value follows (special large positive tag)."

    Bullet 3 says:

    "• For the purposes of chunking, values encoded as indirections or null are treated as
    non-value data."

    And the pseudo-BNF says:

    "(1) <value> ::= <value_tag> [ <codebase_URL> ]
    [ <type_info> ] <state>

    <value_ref>
    (2) <value_ref> ::= <indirection_tag> <indirection>
    <null_tag>
    (3) <value_tag> ::= long// 0x7fffff00 <= value_tag <= 0x7fffffff
    (4) <type_info> ::= <rep_ids>
    <repository_id>
    (5) <state> ::= <octets>
    <value_data>* [ <end_tag> ]
    (6) <value_data> ::= <value_chunk>
    <value>"

    Now clearly the implication of bullet 1 is that an indirection or null must appear inside a chunk in a chunked encoding, otherwise you would be able to see the value 0 or -1 after a chunk and the -1 in particular could mean an end tag or an indirection. However the possible implication of bullet 3 and the BNF (note the use of "value data") is that nulls and indirections are values and thus must appear outside of chunks. Clearly the former interpretation is the correct one otherwise anarchy ensues.

    So I propose that we change the 3rd bullet to say:

    "For the purposes of chunking, values encoded as indirections or null are treated as
    if they were not values and therefore must always appear inside a chunk when a chunked encoding is in effect."

    and then change the BNF to say:

    "(1) <value> ::= <concrete_value> | <value_ref>
    (2) <concrete_value> ::= <value_tag> [ <codebase_URL> ]
    [ <type_info> ] <state>
    (3) <value_ref> ::= <indirection_tag> <indirection> | <null_tag>
    (4) <value_tag> ::= long// 0x7fffff00 <= value_tag <= 0x7fffffff
    (5) <type_info> ::= <rep_ids> | <repository_id>
    (6) <state> ::= <octets> |<value_data>* [ <end_tag> ]
    (7) <value_data> ::= <value_chunk> | <concrete_value>"

    etc

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Fri, 23 May 2003 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

Clarification on multi-threaded codeset negotiation

  • Key: CORBA34-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5880
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Andrew Piper)
  • Summary:

    We recently ran into a problem with a foreign Vendor's ORB and it appears the spec is unclear on this issue.

    The problem occurs when a multi-threaded client is connecting to a server. The spec says (13.10.2.6):

    "Codeset negotiation is not performed on a per-request basis, but only when a client
    initially connects to a server. All text data communicated on a connection are encoded
    as defined by the TCSs selected when the connection is established."

    but is silent on what is supposed to happen if the client has multiple threads all trying to connect at the same time. The issue is that priority inversion can occur - either because the client sends out a request without the negotiated codeset before the one with the negotiated codeset, or because the server processes the request without the negotiated codeset before the one with the negotiated codeset (even if the latter was sent first). The problem we encountered was the latter.

    There are two possible approaches to solving this:

    a) Require the server to serialize connection establishment requests until the codeset (and other connection information) is negotiated. This requires that the client impose appropriate ordering on connection requests.

    b) Require that the client keep sending codeset (and other connection information) until it is sure that the server has received the information (by getting a reply back). This works ok unless you are exclusively using oneways. In this instance you have to keep sending codeset information forever (somewhat costly, and very costly for codebase information).

    CSIv2 (26.2.2.3) explicitly calls out (b) but I prefer (a). Do we have any guidance on what is supposed to happen?

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Tue, 11 Mar 2003 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

[Components] Contradiction between IDL and Interface Repository concerning

  • Key: CORBA34-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6671
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Humboldt-Universitaet ( Bertram Neubauer)
  • Summary:

    According to the IDL language it is allowed to define a facet/receptacle on a component with type of Object. The text says:

    A facet is declared with the following syntax:
    (120) <provides_dcl> ::= “provides” <interface_type> <identifier>
    (121) <interface_type> ::= <scoped_name>

    “Object”
    The interface type shall be either the keyword Object, or a scoped name that denotes
    a previously-declared interface type which is not a component interface, ...

    In contradiction to that the Interface Repository element for a component, the ComponentDef, does only allow the creation of facets/receptacles with type of InterfaceDef. The according operations are:

    // write interface
    ProvidesDef create_provides (
    in RepositoryId id,
    in Identifier name,
    in VersionSpec version,
    in InterfaceDef interface_type
    );
    UsesDef create_uses (
    in RepositoryId id,
    in Identifier name,
    in VersionSpec version,
    in InterfaceDef interface_type,
    in boolean is_multiple
    );

    Thus the ComponentDef can not be used to create a facet/receptacle that is of type Object, since Object is no InterfaceDef but a PrimitiveDef.
    One solution would be to use IDLType instead of InterfaceDef since PrimitiveDef and InterfaceDef inherit from that interface. My proposal is to change the Interface Repository IDL in the following way.

    1) replace in ComponentDef:

    // write interface
    ProvidesDef create_provides (
    in RepositoryId id,
    in Identifier name,
    in VersionSpec version,
    in IDLType interface_type
    );
    UsesDef create_uses (
    in RepositoryId id,
    in Identifier name,
    in VersionSpec version,
    in IDLType interface_type,
    in boolean is_multiple
    );

    2) replace ProvidesDef, ProvidesDecsription, UsesDef, UsesDescription with

    interface ProvidesDef : Contained

    { // read interface readonly attribute IDLType interface_type; }

    ;

    struct ProvidesDescription

    { Identifier name; RepositoryId id; RepositoryId defined_in; VersionSpec version; IDLType interface_type; }

    ;

    interface UsesDef : Contained

    { // read interface readonly attribute IDLType interface_type; readonly attribute boolean is_multiple; }

    ;

    struct UsesDescription

    { Identifier name; RepositoryId id; RepositoryId defined_in; VersionSpec version; IDLType interface_type; boolean is_multiple; }

    ;

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Wed, 3 Dec 2003 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

page 1-20 and page 1-21 - editorial

  • Key: CORBA34-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5945
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS ( Tom Ritter)
  • Summary:

    -page 1-20 and page 1-21 the names of the operations get_all_receptacles get_named_receptacles are written with italic font. This seems to be a mistake.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Thu, 29 May 2003 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

page 1-20 second bullet of the description of the disconnect operation

  • Key: CORBA34-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5943
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS ( Tom Ritter)
  • Summary:

    I found some minor editorial issues in the spec (referring to the document 02-06-65).

    • page 1-20 second bullet of the description of the disconnect operation. An 'and' is missing. This bullet should look like: "If the receptacle is a simplex receptacle and there is no current connection, then the NoConnection exception is raised."
  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Thu, 29 May 2003 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

page 1-20 the description of the get_connection operation

  • Key: CORBA34-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5944
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS ( Tom Ritter)
  • Summary:

    page 1-20 the description of the get_connection operation refers to a ConnectionDescription struct. In fact it is a ConnectionDescription valuetype

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Thu, 29 May 2003 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

Section: 15.4.5.1 struct has to be updated

  • Legacy Issue Number: 12858
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    this section says: // GIOP 1.0 struct LocateRequestHeader_1_0

    { // Renamed LocationRequestHeader unsigned long request_id; sequence <octet> object_key; }

    ; Anonymous types are deprecated so this struct has to be updated

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — CORBA 3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:01 GMT

Sections 8.1.1, 8.2.1:

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7920
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    8.1.1, 8.2.1: the description of the metamodel is very skimpy: for
    example there is no description anywhere about what FinderDef is. There
    should be a separate section for each class with a description of each
    attribute/reference. Conversely the text also talks about 'component
    types' which have 'attributes' (and ports) - this has no obvious
    correspondence with the metamodel (are the attributes in the BaseIDL
    package?). Likewise the text refers to a component being able to inherit
    from one other interface - this is not depicted.

    • most of the OCL constraints make use of 'isStereotyped()' which is
      not OCL, UML nor defined in this specification.
    • Table 10: most of the Tags seem to have no correspondence in the
      metamodel e.g. containerType.
  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:37 GMT

- Figure 2

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7917
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:
    • Figure 2: the arrows are not correct: they should represent a valid
      MOF 1.4 Package relationship (one of clustering, generalization,
      nesting, import). More seriously, since ComponentIDL is nested within
      metamodel CCM it is not allowed to have an import/cluster relationship
      with an external metamodel (BaseIDL in this case): MOF constraint [C49]
      states that "Nested Packages cannot import or cluster other Packages or
      Classes.".
  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:37 GMT

Section 7.1, line1:

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7916
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    7.1, line1: It's not strictly true to say that the CCM Profile
    'specializes' the UML Core package: the latter is the reference
    metamodel for the former.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:37 GMT

Figure 1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7915
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Figure 1 - the import dependencies should be shown with an 'import'
    stereotype

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:37 GMT

Section 8.1.1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7919
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    8.1.1 the heading is 'IDL metamodel' but the caption is 'IDL3
    Metamodel', and in 7.2 it is 'ComponentIDL'.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:37 GMT

7.2, sentence 3

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7918
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    7.2, sentence 3: it is confusing to refer to BaseIDL as the
    'reference metamodel' since that terminology has a specific meaning for
    Profiles which does not apply here.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:37 GMT

use the proper notation for expressing Profiles

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7914
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Should use the proper notation for expressing Profiles. The
    presentation of the Profile (e.g. in Table 1) is confusing in mixing
    references to the equivalent metamodel with references to the reference
    metamodel (UML) being extended by the Profile. Though the diagrams in
    the separate section 8.1.3 make things a lot clearer.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:37 GMT

Minor comments re Components FTF

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7913
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The Report should reference the document number of the Final Adopted
    Spec as the base document.

    • Issue 7628: the final line of the resolution is too vague "add the
      package...and update relations"
    • There should be accompanying MOF XMI (for the metamodel) and UML XMI
      (for the profile).
  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:37 GMT

Section 7.2

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7912
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Section 7.2 states says that "BaseIDL that is a MOF-compliant
    description of the pre-existing CORBA Interface Repository that is
    already specified in the UML Profile for CORBA" - however in the
    document referred to for the latter (ptc/00-10-01) there is no mention
    of BaseIDL - in fact there is no metamodel only a pure profile. BTW a
    more up-to-date reference would be formal/02-04-01. This spec is clearly
    dependent on BaseIDL and so it's important to have a proper reference
    (and this should be in Section 3). In fact the appropriate reference for
    BaseIDL seems to be the CORBA components spec.

    The front page of convenience document, and document footer, still refer
    to it as a (Final) Adopted Specification

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:37 GMT

On Page 18 - Figure 11 Home mapping

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7911
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Technical University Berlin ( Christian Hein)
  • Summary:

    On Page 18 - Figure 11 Home mapping. To me, it doesn't seems properly that CORBAValue inherits from AssociationClass. Perhaps it make sense that the HomeDef gets an attribute with name 'primary key'.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:37 GMT

Section 7, Overview

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7903
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Section 7, Overview consists only of 3 bullets that are instructions to an author rather than an overview e.g. "Explain relations to BaseIDL package"

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Thu, 4 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:37 GMT

sections 1, 3, 4, 5 essentially empty

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7902
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The Convenience Document has sections 1, 3, 4, 5 essentially empty except for 'Editorial Comment: Needs to be completed'. They do need to be completed!
    Even worse, section 2, Conformance, also has a similar 'needs to be completed': though it does contain some text it is nothing like a conformance statement.
    I found it unclear whether the spec was providing a normative metamodel or just a normative profile: the text to be added to Section 1 (Scope) and Section 2 (Conformance) should clarify.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Thu, 4 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:37 GMT

insufficient examples of component attributes

  • Key: CORBA3-133
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5906
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Craig Rodrigues)
  • Summary:

    In OMG document formal/02-06-65, in section "1.3.3 Component Body", there
    is this text:

    "Declarations for facets, receptacles, event sources, event sinks,
    and attributes all map onto operations on the component's equivalent
    interface. These declarations and their meanings are described in
    detail below."

    In the following sections, I see facets, receptacles, event sources,
    and event sinks described, but I see no mention of attributes.
    It would be usefult to have an example of attributes in an appropriate
    place, as outlined by section 1.3.3.

    In section "1.10 Configuration with Attributes", I see that configurators
    are described, but I see no example of using attributes directly
    to configure a component.

    It would be very useful to include a small example to illustrate
    how to configure a component directly by using attributes.

    Diego Sevilla Ruiz <dsevilla@ditec.um.es> gave this
    C++ example on the CCM mailing list ( http://moriarty.dif.um.es/mailman/listinfo/ccm ):

    ======================================================

    component Whatever

    { attribute long cacheMaxKb; }

    ;

    home WhateverHome manages Whatever
    {
    };

    // C++
    WhateverHome_var weh = // obtain ref
    Whatever_var we = weh->create();

    we->cacheMaxKb(200);

    we->configuration_complete();

    ======================================================

    I don't suggest that this example be used verbatim,
    but a similar example would be useful to have in the
    CCM spec.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — CORBA 3.0.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    duplicate of issue 5898

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:37 GMT

Derived component supported interface restriction

  • Key: CORBA3-132
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5683
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Both the CORBA spec (formal/02-06-01 page 3-61) and the CCM spec (formal/02-06-65 page 1-51) state that "A derived component type may not directly support an interface." Moreover the sentence you depicted is a contradiction with the formal/02-06-65 section 1.3.2.4 page 1-7.
    Resolution:

    In formal/02-06-65 page 1-51 and formal/02-06-01 page 3-61 replace the sentence

    "A derived component type may not directly support an interface."

    with

    "If a derived component type directly supports one or more IDL interfaces, the component interface is derived from both the interface of its base component type and the supported interfaces."

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:37 GMT

Section: exceptions

  • Legacy Issue Number: 11027
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: wipro ( Rashmi)
  • Summary:

    org.omg.CORBA.NO_PERMISSION: vmcid: 0x0 minor code: 103 completed: No | | at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance0(Native | | Method) | | at | | sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(NativeConstructorAcces | | sorImpl.java:39) Feb 19 15:48:44 NMADR2CMT1 root: [NotificationChannel]NotificationChannel( ). Creating channel NpmChannel Feb 19 15:52:28 NMADR2CMT1 root: org.omg.CORBA.COMM_FAILURE: vmcid: SUN minor code: 201 completed: No Feb 19 15:52:28 NMADR2CMT1 root: above mentioned are the errors we are getting from the the client appilcation. can anybody provide us the information why these execptions are generated and how to fix this kind of errors.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Mon, 21 May 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — CORBA 3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:55 GMT

Codec Interface Deficiencies

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7731
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Zuehlke Engineering ( Frank Pilhofer)
  • Summary:

    CORBA 3, chapter 13.8, defines the Codec interface to encode
    arbitrary data values into CORBA::OctetSeq "blobs" and vice
    versa. This interface can be used, e.g., to supply and retrieve
    ServiceContext data using the PortableInterceptor interfaces.

    In practice, the Codec interface is also being used for data
    serialization, i.e., to store and retrieve arbitrary values in
    files or other databases.

    However, the interface is deficient in that it does not consider
    all possible variables that are needed for interoperability.
    It supports setting the CDR version that is to be used, but
    neglects byteorder and codeset settings.

    Consequently, the encoded values are platform-specific. If a
    value was encoded on a little-endian system, it will not decode,
    or worse, decode erroneously, on a big-endian system. The same
    caveats apply to codesets, e.g., when an ISO-8859-1 encoded
    blob is decoded using UTF-8 or Windows-1252.

    To support interoperability, the Codec interface needs to be
    extended.

    My recommendation is to extend the CodecFactory interface,
    so that it supports creating CDR version-, byteorder-, and
    codeset-specific Codec instances, either supplying user-
    provided values for each, or informing the user about chosen
    defaults.

    Example:

    module IOP {
    const EncodingFormat ENCODING_DEFAULT = -1;

    typedef short ByteorderFormat;
    const ByteorderFormat BYTEORDER_DEFAULT = -1;
    const ByteorderFormat BYTEORDER_BIGENDIAN = 0;
    const ByteorderFormat BYTEORDER_LITTLEENDIAN = 1;

    struct EncodingExt

    { EncodingFormat format; octet major_version; // set to 0 for default octet minor_version; ByteorderFormat byteorder; CONV_FRAME::CodeSetId char_data; // set to 0 for default CONV_FRAME::CodeSetId wchar_data; // set to 0 for default }

    ;

    local interface CodecFactory

    { // create_codec remains as before Codec create_codec_ext (inout EncodingExt enc) raises (UnknownEncoding); }

    ;
    };

    The create_codec_ext operation would create an appropriate
    Codec instance, if available; it will then set all "default"
    members of the EncodingExt structure to their actual values,
    so that the application can store this information along
    with any encoded values.

    One potential criticism of the above is that the encoding
    format's parameters depend on the encoding format. For example,
    there may be encoding formats that are byteorder-independent,
    or that consistently use UTF-32 for strings, thus not needing
    codeset parameters. Also, they may use wildly different
    versioning. So a "better" solution might involve passing
    the EncodingFormat, and an Any with a format-specific data
    type.

    That could look like:

    module GIOP {
    typedef short ByteorderFormat;
    const ByteorderFormat BYTEORDER_DEFAULT = -1;
    const ByteorderFormat BYTEORDER_BIGENDIAN = 0;
    const ByteorderFormat BYTEORDER_LITTLEENDIAN = 1;

    struct CDREncodingParameters

    { octet major_version; // set to 0 for default octet minor_version; ByteorderFormat byteorder; CONV_FRAME::CodeSetId char_data; // set to 0 for default CONV_FRAME::CodeSetId wchar_data; // set to 0 for default }

    ;
    };

    module IOP {
    const EncodingFormat ENCODING_DEFAULT = -1;

    local interface CodecFactory

    { // create_codec remains as before Codec create_codec_ext (inout EncodingFormat format, inout Any parameters) raises (UnknownEncoding); }

    ;
    };

    Once we have consensus on the approach, I will gladly volunteer
    to come up with a full set of editing instructions

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Thu, 9 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — CORBA 3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    duplicate

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:25 GMT

Error in Chapter 21 of CORBA 3.0

  • Key: CORBA3-131
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6912
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Ken Cavanaugh)
  • Summary:

    there is a serious error in Chapter 21 in both the CORBA 3.0 specification and the 3.1 drafts. The ORT final adopted specification (ptc/01-08-31 mentioned above) does NOT contain the methods ObjectReferenceFactory::equals an ObjectReferenceFactory::make_profiles. These methods were first added in the ORT FTF in issue 4476, then removed after further discussion in issue 4478. The final adopted specification reflects this, but somehow the incorrect text was incorporated into the official CORBA 3.0 specification. Unfortunately I only noticed this recently

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    issue closed editorially

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:40 GMT

Wrong minor code listed in POAManager::deactivate

  • Key: CORBA3-130
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5449
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    Section 11.3.2.5 states that BAD_INV_ORDER with minor code 6 is raised
    if POAManager::deactivate is called from an invocation on a POA that
    would be affected by the deactivate call.

    This minor code ought to be 3 instead

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Mon, 1 Jul 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    editorially fixed in 3.0

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:40 GMT

Make a typedef for the POA id new

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7891
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    Made a typedef for the POA id new: local interface POA

    { typedef CORBA::OctetSeq POAid; }

    change: local interface POA

    { readonly attribute CORBA::OctetSeq id; }

    to: local interface POA

    { readonly attribute POAid id; }
  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.3 — Mon, 1 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

ValueMembersSeq

  • Legacy Issue Number: 5939
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MetroApp Entertainment ( Keith Allyn Baker)
  • Summary:

    ValueMembersSeq is not defined in the CORE Specification and appears in interface ORB, but I believe it is a typo of ValueMemberSeq:

    TypeCode create_value_tc ( in RepositoryId id, in Identifier name, in ValueModifier type_modifier, in TypeCode concrete_base, in ValueMembersSeq members );

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.2 — Sun, 11 May 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    In CORBA v3.3 Part 1 Interfaces, section section 8.2 change ValueMembersSeq to
    ValueMemberSeq

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

Editorial issues in formal/02-06-65

  • Key: CORBA3-122
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5585
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Philippe Merle)
  • Summary:

    The Adopted CORBA Components Specification (formal/02-06-65)
    always contains some texts removed by the Components December
    2000 RTF (ptc/01-11-02 and ptc/01-11-03). See at

    formal/02-06-65 ptc/01-11-03

    page 1-24 and 25 page 61-241
    page 1-26 page 61-243
    page 1-28 page 61-245
    page 4-37 page 62-363
    page 6-67 page 69-542
    page 6-72 page 69-548
    page 8-23 page 70-601

    Remove these old texts once again.

    Proposed revised text:

    Following must be applied on formal/02-06-65.

    At pages 1-24 and 1-25, remove

    module <module_name> {
    module <component_name>EventConsumers

    { interface <event_type>Consumer; };
    interface <component_name> : Components::CCMObject { Components::Cookie subscribe_ <source_name> ( in <component_name>EventConsumers:: <event_type>Consumer consumer) raises (Components::ExceededConnectionLimit); <component_name>EventConsumers:: <event_type>Consumer unsubscribe_<source_name> (in Components::Cookie ck) raises (Components::InvalidConnection); };
    module <component_name>EventConsumers {
    interface <event_type>Consumer :
    Components::EventConsumerBase { void push (in <event_type> evt); };
    };
    };


    At page 1-26, remove


    module <module_name> {
    module <component_name>EventConsumers { interface <event_type>Consumer; }

    ;
    interface <component_name> : Components::CCMObject

    { void connect_ <source_name> ( in <component_name>EventConsumers:: <event_type>Consumer consumer ) raises (Components::AlreadyConnected); <component_name>EventConsumers:: <event_type>Consumer disconnect_ <source_name>() raises (Components::NoConnection); }

    ;
    module <component_name>EventConsumers {
    interface <event_type> Consumer :
    Components::EventConsumerBase

    { void push (in <event_type> evt); };
    };
    };


    At page 1-28, remove


    module <module_name> {
    module <component_name>EventConsumers { interface <event_type>Consumer; };
    interface <component_name> : Components::CCMObject { <component_name>EventConsumers:: <event_type>Consumer get_consumer _<sink_name>(); };
    module <component_name>EventConsumers {
    interface <event_type>Consumer :
    Components::EventConsumerBase { void push (in <event_type> evt); }

    ;
    };
    };

    At page 4-37, remove in Session2Context interface
    the two occurrences of PortableServer::ObjectId.

    At page 6-67, remove

    Note Of the interfaces described below, only
    ComponentInstallation,
    AssemblyFactory, and Assembly are required by this specification;
    the other
    interfaces are included for illustrative purposes and to support an
    end-to-end scenario.

    At page 6-72, remove

    exception InvalidLocation { };

    At page 8-23, remove Figure 8-20.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Corrections in XML DTDs for packaging

  • Key: CORBA3-121
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5584
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Philippe Merle)
  • Summary:

    In the Adopted CORBA Components Specification (formal/02-06-65),
    page 6-4, section 6.3.2.1, the version attribute of the softpkg
    element is tagged as #OPTIONAL and is tagged as #IMPLIED at page 7-5.
    As #OPTIONAL is not valid in XML, then replace it by #IMPLIED.

    In chapter 7, the softpkg XML DTD does not contain the
    ins and objref elements which they are used by the repository
    element described at page 7-4. Add them.

    Proposed revised text:

    In formal/02-06-65:

    At page 6-4, section 6.3.2.1, replace #OPTIONAL
    by #IMPLIED for the version attribute of the softpkg element.

    At page 7-3, add before the humanlanguage element

    <!ELEMENT ins EMPTY >
    <!ATTLIST ins
    name CDATA #REQUIRED >

    At page 7-4, add before the os element

    <!ELEMENT objref EMPTY >
    <!ATTLIST objref
    string CDATA #REQUIRED >

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Wed, 21 Aug 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Remove section 4.4.1.4 in formal/02-06-65

  • Key: CORBA3-120
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5583
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Philippe Merle)
  • Summary:

    Proposed resolution:

    The Adopted CORBA Components Specification (formal/02-06-65)
    always contains the section 4.4.1.4 at page 4-36.

    However, this section was removed in the ptc/01-11-03 document
    by the resolution of the issue 3937 of the Final Report of
    Components December 2000 FTF (ptc/01-11-02).

    Proposed revised text:

    In formal/02-06-65 page 4-36, remove the section 4.4.1.4.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Tue, 20 Aug 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Update Table 5-13 in the EJB Chapter of formal/02-06-65

  • Key: CORBA3-123
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5588
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Philippe Merle)
  • Summary:

    In ptc/01-11-03, page 64-410, there is the following note

    Issue This table will be completed after the Interface Repository
    chapter is ready.

    Then Table 5-13 in formal/02-06-65 would be completed.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

create operation of AssemblyFactory interface

  • Key: CORBA3-119
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5577
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS ( Tom Ritter)
  • Summary:

    The name of the create operation in the AssemblyFactory Interface shall
    be renamed to a more specific identifier. Create is often used in other
    interfaces and this may lead to problems e.g. in inheritance relationships.

    suggested change:

    create -> create_assembly

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Tue, 13 Aug 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

69.8.2 Property File XML Elements

  • Key: CORBA3-118
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5507
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    1. 69.8.2.1 The properties Root Element, page 69-537
    Properties Element Cardinality. Suggested change is to replace "*" with "
    +".
    Why does it make sense to have an empty properties file, since the
    properties are
    optional references in the Software Package DTD, CORBA Component DTD, and
    Component Assembly DTD?

    Current Format

    <!ELEMENT properties
    ( description?
    , ( simple

    sequence
    struct
    valuetype
    )*
    ) >

    Suggested New Format

    <!ELEMENT properties
    ( description?
    , ( simple

    sequence
    struct
    valuetype
    )+
    ) >
  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Mon, 15 Jul 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Typo (??) in chapter 61

  • Key: CORBA3-117
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5506
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Philippe Merle)
  • Summary:

    In the CCM specification document ptc/2001-11-03 page 61-227
    the 'session' word should be removed from the OMG IDL 3.0
    example, i.e.:

    component baz session {

    should be replaced by:

    component baz {

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Mon, 15 Jul 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Correct the typo by removing the 'session' word

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

paragraph 60.2.1 : There is two mistakes in keywords

  • Key: CORBA3-115
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5499
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Philippe Merle)
  • Summary:
    • Capital letters are not appropriated. Correct "storageHome" with
      "storagehome".
    • The keyword "catalog" must be removed as it was removed from PSDL.
  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Mon, 15 Jul 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Productions 140, 141, 142 and 143 must be removed

  • Key: CORBA3-116
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5500
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Philippe Merle)
  • Summary:

    Productions 140, 141, 142 and 143 must be removed. Catalog has been
    removed
    from the PSS specification.
    Production 145 : <home_executor_body> refers to <stored_on_dcl> which is
    defined in production 151
    as <home_persistence_dcl>. Pick one or the other and changes references
    as required ...
    Productions 149 and 150 are not valid any more. Remove them and add a
    new production :
    <abstract_storage_home_name> ::= <identifier>
    identifier must be the name of an abstract storagehome previously
    declared

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Mon, 15 Jul 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

CIDL Grammar problems: Productions must be renumbered : 134 -> 1, ...

  • Key: CORBA3-114
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5498
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Philippe Merle)
  • Summary:

    Productions must be renumbered : 134 -> 1, ...

    In all productions, replace ...storage_home... by ...storagehome... and
    ...storage_type...
    by storagetype...

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Mon, 15 Jul 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Issues related to CCM's XML descriptors: chapter 69.7.2.38

  • Key: CORBA3-112
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5496
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Philippe Merle)
  • Summary:

    chapter 69.7.2.38
    the processcollocation element given in this chapter lacks a
    DESTINATION child element
    right one:
    <!ELEMENT processcollocation
    (usagename?
    , impltype?
    , (homeplacement

    extension
    )+
    ,destination?
    )>
    <!ATTLIST processcollocation
    id ID #IMPLIED
    cardinality CDATA "1">
  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Mon, 15 Jul 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Issues related to CCM's XML descriptors: chapter 69.4.5.16

  • Key: CORBA3-110
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5494
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Philippe Merle)
  • Summary:

    chapter 69.4.5.16
    this eventpolicy element is said to be child element of
    corbacomponent
    in fact it can be child element of: consumes, emits, publishes
    but it's NOT a child element of corbacomponent

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Tue, 23 Jul 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Issues related to CCM's XML descriptors: chapter 69.7.2.25

  • Key: CORBA3-111
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5495
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Philippe Merle)
  • Summary:

    chapter 69.7.2.25
    the given reference to the fileinarchive element is wrong
    (69.3.2.11);
    the right one is 69.3.2.12

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Mon, 15 Jul 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Correct the false cross-reference

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

Issues related to CCM's XML descriptors: chapter 695.4

  • Key: CORBA3-113
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5497
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Philippe Merle)
  • Summary:

    chapter 695.4
    the elements aren't in the alphabetical order
    proxyhome must be placed before publishesidentifier

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Mon, 15 Jul 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Issues related to CCM's XML descriptors: chapter 69.4.4

  • Key: CORBA3-109
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5492
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INRIA ( Philippe Merle)
  • Summary:

    chapter 69.4.4
    the sample componentkind definition given as an entity with
    "process" lifetime seems
    unadapted as described in 69.4.5.49, we can give a best lifetime
    with "container"

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Mon, 15 Jul 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

simple type element of the property file issue

  • Key: CORBA3-108
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5429
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Computational Physics, Inc. ( J. Scott Evans)
  • Summary:

    In document 01-11-03.pdf section 69.8.2.8 the simple type element
    of the property file descriptor excludes the types:

    long long
    unsigned long long
    long double
    wchar

    Is there any reason why we can't add these types to the simple element?

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Thu, 13 Jun 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Issue regarding language mapping for keyless homes

  • Key: CORBA3-107
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5340
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    In 01-11-03.pdf page 61-255

    Given a base home definition with a primary key (H, T, K), and a derived home
    definition with no primary key (H', T'), such that H' is derived from H, then the
    definition of H' implicitly includes a primary key specification of type K, becoming
    (H', T', K). The implicit interface for H' shall have the form specified for an
    implicit interface of a home with primary key K and component type T'.

    In same document section 615.3.3.6 Home I see no mention that a keyless
    home that inherits from a keyed home is implicitly a keyed home and thus
    the Home Implicit Executor Interface must be constructed for a keyed home
    using the key type declared for the base keyed home. Everyone agree?

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Fri, 7 Jun 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

What ORBInitInfo operations are legal during pre_init() and post_init()?

  • Key: CORBA3-101
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5692
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    There is no information in chapter 21 that specifies which operations on
    ORBInitInfo can be legally called during pre_init or post_init.

    The intention appears to be that calls to register new interceptors or
    allocate a new slot id should be illegal during post_init.

    Calling resolve_initial_references during pre_init does not appear to be
    wise, but otherwise seems benign.

    Proposed resolution:

    Add the following to 21.7.1.2:

    "During a call to post_init(), invoking the ORBInitInfo methods:
    add_client_request_interceptor, add_server_request_interceptor,
    allocate_slot_id or add_ior_interceptor will raise the BAD_INV_ORDER
    standard system exception with minor code nnn."

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    duplicate of issue 5691

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

AMI vs abstract & local interfaces

  • Key: CORBA3-100
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5664
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    The spec is silent about the interaction of AMI implied IDL and abstract
    interfaces

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify that sendc_ and sendp_ operations are not generated for abstract interfaces

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

Type code creation

  • Key: CORBA3-97
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5771
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd ( Michi Henning)
  • Summary:

    The core spec says in section 4.11.3:

    Typecode creation operations that take name as an argument shall check that
    the name
    is a valid IDL name or is a null string.

    This is oxymoronic: we are talking about IDL here; IDL does not have the
    concept of
    a null string. If anything, we can say "empty string".

    Looking at this bit of spec, it would appear that a call such as

    orb->create_interface_tc(someRepId, 0);

    is legal. But that doesn't make sense because it's illegal to pass null
    pointers
    across IDL interfaces in C++ (or null references as strings in Java).

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0.1 — Sun, 1 Dec 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 3.0.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix as suggested

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

CORBA::WrongTransaction and Interceptors

  • Key: CORBA3-94
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5743
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Floorboard Software ( Jonathan Biggar)
  • Summary:

    How can a portable OTS implementation, using only Portable Interceptors,
    achieve the correct semantics for raising CORBA::WrongTransaction from
    Request::get_response or ORB::get_next_response or type specific
    pollers? There doesn't appear to be a way to do this for two reasons:

    1. ClientRequestInterceptors can only change a request result into a
    system exception, but WrongTransaction is a user exception.

    2. 21.4.4.6 says:

    "Interceptors shall assume that each client-side interception point
    logically runs in its own thread, with no context relationship between
    it and any other thread. While an ORB implementation may not actually
    behave in this manner, it is up to the ORB implementation to treat
    PICurrent as if it did."

    I take this to mean that the PICurrent in the receive_* client
    interception points cannot be guaranteed to share the same slot data as
    the client thread that called Request::get_response. This means that
    the interceptor has no way to determine whether or not the transaction
    context of the client thread matches that of the request.

  • Reported: CORBA 3.0 — Thu, 31 Oct 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: