Common Object Request Broker Architecture Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Common Object Request Broker Architecture — Open Issues

  • Acronym: CORBA
  • Issues Count: 83
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
CORBA34-212 Section: 15.4.5.1 struct has to be updated CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-208 module SendingContext CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-194 methods on the POA CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-195 Codec Interface Deficiencies CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-196 An extension of IOR to protect target objects Nature CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-191 argument of the set_servant call has a small typo CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-192 change in the POAManager CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-193 Add a typedef for the POAManager id CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-188 CORBA 3.0.3 ch. 3.4 OMG IDL Grammar CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-189 The POA state inactive is not used consistent. CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-185 Code Set Conversion on Operations CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-186 Appendix A CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-187 Section: 4.3.13 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-168 interface ORB should be local CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-169 Make anonymous types illegal CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-161 Section: 21.7.3 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-162 Section: 4.8.1 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-163 move struct to IOP module CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-158 add interface ORB { Object string_to_object ( in wstring str ); }; CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-159 add CORBA::ORB::arg_list CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-160 Section 13.7 ServiceContext CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-155 Section: 21.3.13 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-146 struct PolicyValue CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-154 Section: 13.6.10.1 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-150 Third line of 23.1.3.4, ACTIVE must be bold CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-151 Proposal to change PortableInterceptor::AdapterState to a real enum CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-152 Proposal to change PortableInterceptor::ReplyStatus to a real enum CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-153 Section: 15.4.2/16.4.1 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-133 update the spec to not used anonymous types CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-138 Typo in sections 22.10.1.1 and 22.10.1.2 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-139 Minor code ambiguity CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-140 Moving *Seq typedefs into ORB chapter CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-134 Section: 4.2 (02) CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-135 Section: 4.2 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-136 Section: 13.6.2 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-137 Section: 7.4 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-128 Section: 22.16/ CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-129 Section: 11.3.9 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-130 Section: 21.4.3.1 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-131 Section: 21.9.1 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-132 Section: 21.7 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-126 Page: 21-43 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-127 Section: 22.11.1 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-122 CORBA Exceptions CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-123 Section: 11.3.9.16 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-124 FullInterfaceDescription and base_interfaces question CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-121 Allowing mutual recursion for IDL structs - clarification needed CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-119 Section: 21.3.14.11 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-120 Section: 4.5.2 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-112 Section: Chapter 11 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-113 Allowing Mutual Recursion for IDL Structures CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-114 NVList Section: 7.5 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-115 Page: 7-7 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-111 Section: Chapter 9, Chapter 5 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-116 Page: 9-1 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-117 Page: 21-5 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-118 Section: Appendix A CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-85 lwCCM issues - segmentation CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-86 lwCCM issues - locator CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-87 lwCCM issues - CIDL CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-88 lwCCM issues - abstract storage home CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-89 lwCCM issues - abstract storage type CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-90 lwCCM issues - section 4.1.2 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-91 lwCCM issues - entity components CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-92 lwCCM issues - persistence CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-93 lwCCM issues - security CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-94 lwCCM issues - transaction CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-76 Dependency on D+C FTF CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-77 lwCCM issues - Entity2Context CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-78 lwCCM issues - invalid rows CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-79 lwCCM issues - home finders and finder operations CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-80 lwCCM issues - proxy homes CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-81 lwCCM issues - configurators CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-82 lwCCM issues - Section 4.1 CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-83 lwCCM issues - primary key CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-84 lwCCM issues - get_all_facet, ... CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-43 The D&C IDL part doesn't match 06-04-02. CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-44 Contradictory sections in the CCM and Lightweight CCM specifications CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-45 "supports" keyword CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-46 add some feature to let an assembly look like a monolithic compoment CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-47 HomeExecutorBase should have a set_context method CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-48 EnterpriseComponent should have a set_persistent_object method CORBA 3.0.3 open
CORBA34-49 Generic connectivity for Receptacles, Emitters, Publishers CORBA 3.0.3 open

Issues Descriptions

Section: 15.4.5.1 struct has to be updated

  • Legacy Issue Number: 12858
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:01 GMT

module SendingContext

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7340
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:01 GMT

methods on the POA

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7890
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Codec Interface Deficiencies

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7730
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

An extension of IOR to protect target objects Nature

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7592
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

argument of the set_servant call has a small typo

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7896
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

change in the POAManager

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7893
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Add a typedef for the POAManager id

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7892
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

CORBA 3.0.3 ch. 3.4 OMG IDL Grammar

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7978
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

The POA state inactive is not used consistent.

  • Legacy Issue Number: 7955
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Code Set Conversion on Operations

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8244
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Appendix A

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8230
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 4.3.13

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8221
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

interface ORB should be local

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16315
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Make anonymous types illegal

  • Legacy Issue Number: 16047
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 21.7.3

  • Legacy Issue Number: 12555
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 4.8.1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 12551
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

move struct to IOP module

  • Legacy Issue Number: 12550
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

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

  • Legacy Issue Number: 12857
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

add CORBA::ORB::arg_list

  • Legacy Issue Number: 12773
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section 13.7 ServiceContext

  • Legacy Issue Number: 12559
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 21.3.13

  • Legacy Issue Number: 10817
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

struct PolicyValue

  • Legacy Issue Number: 12549
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 13.6.10.1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 11161
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Third line of 23.1.3.4, ACTIVE must be bold

  • Legacy Issue Number: 11525
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Proposal to change PortableInterceptor::AdapterState to a real enum

  • Legacy Issue Number: 11515
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Proposal to change PortableInterceptor::ReplyStatus to a real enum

  • Legacy Issue Number: 11514
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 15.4.2/16.4.1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 11332
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

update the spec to not used anonymous types

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8783
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Typo in sections 22.10.1.1 and 22.10.1.2

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8629
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Minor code ambiguity

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8618
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Moving *Seq typedefs into ORB chapter

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8586
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 4.2 (02)

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8633
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 4.2

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8632
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 13.6.2

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8631
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 7.4

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8630
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 22.16/

  • Legacy Issue Number: 9075
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 11.3.9

  • Legacy Issue Number: 9016
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 21.4.3.1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8856
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 21.9.1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8844
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 21.7

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8843
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Page: 21-43

  • Legacy Issue Number: 9112
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 22.11.1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 9082
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

CORBA Exceptions

  • Legacy Issue Number: 9618
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 11.3.9.16

  • Legacy Issue Number: 9460
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

FullInterfaceDescription and base_interfaces question

  • Legacy Issue Number: 9140
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Allowing mutual recursion for IDL structs - clarification needed

  • Legacy Issue Number: 10558
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 21.3.14.11

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8862
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: 4.5.2

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8860
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: Chapter 11

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8985
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Allowing Mutual Recursion for IDL Structures

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8969
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

NVList Section: 7.5

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8929
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Page: 7-7

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8881
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: Chapter 9, Chapter 5

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8986
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Page: 9-1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8879
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Page: 21-5

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8874
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Section: Appendix A

  • Legacy Issue Number: 8864
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - segmentation

  • Key: CORBA34-85
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7142
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - locator

  • Key: CORBA34-86
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7141
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - CIDL

  • Key: CORBA34-87
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7133
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - abstract storage home

  • Key: CORBA34-88
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7132
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - abstract storage type

  • Key: CORBA34-89
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7131
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - section 4.1.2

  • Key: CORBA34-90
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7130
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - entity components

  • Key: CORBA34-91
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7129
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - persistence

  • Key: CORBA34-92
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7128
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - security

  • Key: CORBA34-93
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7127
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - transaction

  • Key: CORBA34-94
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7126
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Dependency on D+C FTF

  • Key: CORBA34-76
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7363
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - Entity2Context

  • Key: CORBA34-77
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7150
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - invalid rows

  • Key: CORBA34-78
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7149
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - home finders and finder operations

  • Key: CORBA34-79
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7148
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - proxy homes

  • Key: CORBA34-80
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7147
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - configurators

  • Key: CORBA34-81
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7146
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - Section 4.1

  • Key: CORBA34-82
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7145
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - primary key

  • Key: CORBA34-83
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7144
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

lwCCM issues - get_all_facet, ...

  • Key: CORBA34-84
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7143
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

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

  • Key: CORBA34-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10582
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Contradictory sections in the CCM and Lightweight CCM specifications

  • Key: CORBA34-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10142
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

"supports" keyword

  • Key: CORBA34-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9174
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

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

  • Key: CORBA34-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9173
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

HomeExecutorBase should have a set_context method

  • Key: CORBA34-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7733
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

EnterpriseComponent should have a set_persistent_object method

  • Key: CORBA34-48
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7732
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT

Generic connectivity for Receptacles, Emitters, Publishers

  • Key: CORBA34-49
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7556
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00 GMT