${taskforce.name} Avatar
  1. OMG Task Force

Lightweight Services FTF — All Issues

  • Key: LTSVC
  • Issues Count: 3
Create Issue
Open Closed All
All Issues

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
LTSVC-3 Non normative IDL needs to be defined for Lightweight Services submission LtSVC 1.0b1 LtSVC 1.0 Resolved closed
LTSVC-2 Lack of non-normative client IDL definition LtSVC 1.0b1 open
LTSVC-1 Can we eliminate CosPropertyService.idl from Lightweight time LtSVC 1.0b1 open

Issues Descriptions

Non normative IDL needs to be defined for Lightweight Services submission

  • Key: LTSVC-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7063
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Mr. Kevin Richardson)
  • Summary:

    The LW Services errata includes the following text
    " For convenience, in this specification, only the operations which are
    not disabled are shown in the informative IDL descriptions of these
    services. "
    However as of now this IDL has not been defined and incorporated into
    the specification. This annex needs to be created.

  • Reported: LtSVC 1.0b1 — Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — LtSVC 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

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

Lack of non-normative client IDL definition

  • Key: LTSVC-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7674
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Jerry Bickle)
  • Summary:

    Based on the roles on clients that use the event service or naming service
    only certain operations are used.
    Recommendation: Add another annex for Client Non-Normative IDL for
    Lightweight Services
  • Reported: LtSVC 1.0b1 — Fri, 3 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Can we eliminate CosPropertyService.idl from Lightweight time

  • Key: LTSVC-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7619
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Rockwell Collins ( David Haverkamp)
  • Summary:

    Can we eliminate the CosPropertyService.idl from the Lightweight time? or
    at least make it optional or embedded system friendly?

    I have some thoughts about it... But, I'd like to hear what others think.
    Obviously this would have to be something deferred to the RTF if we do it.

    Obviously, I'm starting to think about some implementation issues with
    Lightweight Services.

    It seem to bring along alot of extra baggage...
  • Reported: LtSVC 1.0b1 — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT