Summary: How does a CORBA manager get a JIDM::EventPortFactory reference ? In
order for a manager to create an EventPort would it:

A) i) resolve the ProxyAgentFinder (eg, resolve_initial_references())
ii) obtain a reference to a ProxyAgent
iii) obtain a factory finder from the ProxyAgent via
get_domain_factory_finder()
iv) use the EventPortFactory returned by iii) to create an EventPort
for the domain

• OR -

B) i) resolve the EventPortFactory (eg. resolve_initial_references())
ii) invoke create_event_port() with some additional Critieria that
describes which domain is being accessed??

We are looking on the implementation of the JIDM interfaces. The class
ProxyAgentController is unclear to us. How we can make decision on
Graceful destruction looking on the return value of the
destruction_is_allowed operation of ProxyAgentController? What is meant
by the 'terms and conditions' addressed by the Criteria return value of
that operation. It will be a greate help if you could clear our doubts.

Summary: Issue regarding RDN to CosNaming::NameComponent mapping (page 4-76): How
should an OSI naming attribute be mapped to a CosNaming::NameComponent,
when the ASN.1 attribute syntax is a SEQUENCE containing OPTIONAL and/or
DEFAULT elements ?

:NameComponent,

The "Basic Concepts" section contains an explanation of terms to be used throughout the document. I find that the definition of some terms and their later use in the same Basic Concepts section appear, at first glance anyway, to be ambiguous or contrary to each other thus throwing me into a terrible state of confusion!

Namely, 8th paragraph (included below) does not seem to enable me to understand the 12th paragraph that I also include. Namely, the problem is the words in brackets do not seem correct in the context.

1) Managed domains are sometimes referred to as "agents" and "managed object domains." while manager domains are sometimes referred to as "manager applications" or simply "managers."

2) When a manager (agent) gains access to a managed object domain (manager domain), it is said . . . .

If it is a case that one can read the sentence using the bracketed words as the alternative that is ok, i.e.,

form 1) When a manager gains access to a managed object domain, it is said . . . .

form 2) When an agent gains access to a manager domain, it is said . . . .

But, in my view it is not a consistent use of the brackets as earlier in the same paragraph bracketed words are used as an alternative name for something they follow (an equivalent entity) (see paragraph 6 same section) as opposed to a different entity.

We are looking on the implementation of the JIDM interfaces. The class
ProxyAgentController is unclear to us. How we can make decision on
Graceful destruction looking on the return value of the
destruction_is_allowed operation of ProxyAgentController? What is meant
by the 'terms and conditions' addressed by the Criteria return value of
that operation. It will be a greate help if you could clear our doubts.

Summary: This is an issue for the "CORBA/TMN Interworking RTF":

In the OSI Facilities, the specification potentially allows to have
unconfirmed ManagedObject creations/deletions, whereas in Q3/OSI they
are always confirmed. The OSI Facilities should thus explicitly say that
for creation and deletion operations, LinkedReplyHandler and
EndOfRepliesHandler cannot be null object references, otherwise an
exception should be raised (e.g. BAD_PARAM).