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

PSS FTF — Closed Issues

  • Key: PSS
  • Issues Count: 20
Open Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
PSS-29 cross-referencing PSS and CosCollections PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-28 PSS storage model and associated object interactions unclear PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-24 New PSS Issue: Interface Inheritance PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-23 Some others ways to get an abstract storage type reference PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-27 New PSS Issue: Private state members PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-26 New PSS Issues: Full Scopes for Storage Objects PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-21 usage of user defined catalogs unclear. PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-25 New PSS Issue: Is the PSDL Grammar Too Complicated? PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-22 no parameter order for operations _create(...) defined PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-20 Mistakes in CosPersisentState.psdl presented in chapter 11. PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-14 PSS FTF issue: PSS & Thread-Safety PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-13 PSS FTF issue: ConnectorRegistry made redundant by PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-12 PSS-FTF issue: Need additional C++ helpers PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-11 C++ mapping for PSDL storage object references PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-10 The use of italics is wrong in some grammar rules PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-17 PSS: factory_dcl syntax PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-16 PSS FTF: Read-only operations on storage objects PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-15 PSS FTF issue: Restrictions on PSDL concrete types PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-18 PSS: Mapping for catalogs and abstract storage homes PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed
PSS-19 PSS: provides_dcl production misnamed PSS 1.0b1 PSS 1.0 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

cross-referencing PSS and CosCollections

  • Key: PSS-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4984
  • Status: closed  
  • Summary:

    Can you add issue cross-referencing PSS and CosCollections.
    Under PSS the work "key" is a reserved work. The CosCollections IDL
    interface
    uses "key" as an operation name under the Operations interface. This
    needs to be changed to something else. I propose changing the operation
    name from "key" to "user_key", reflecting the operation semantics.

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Mon, 18 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    purely editorial issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

PSS storage model and associated object interactions unclear

  • Key: PSS-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4074
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Iconixx ( Thomas Hawker)
  • Summary:

    See the Persistent State Service specification, orbos/99-07-07, section
    5.2.2 (or thereabouts) and section 7.

    I am confused by the storage model "overview" given in section 5.2.2 and
    the more comprehensive treatment in the discussion of the PSDL grammar
    in section 7. The treatment of abstract storage types, homes, and their
    (concrete) implementations is inadequately mapped between the two,
    leading to very unclear semantics. My specific concerns:

    • It is explicitly stated in the text that types, homes, and their
      independent derivation lines are taken from a Java model. Why this
      explicit dependence on Java? Could the submitters not come up with a
      more generic model? Has anyone tried to map these concepts to
      Smalltalk, which doesn't have the same kinds of object representation
      and implementation difficulties as Java and C++? Even though I am a
      Smalltalk expert, my attempts at such a mapping on the proposed model
      have been less than exciting.
    • Although the keyword "abstract" was already defined, why are abstract
      storagetypes and storagehomes "abstract"? They certainly seem
      concrete enough to me, since I would expect that the definition is
      sufficient to generate code equivalent to a valuetype. This
      ambiguates both the general IDL concept of abstraction and concrete
      storagetypes in particular: in all other places abstract types
      represent non-instantiable objects that have no explicit state, and
      it is not at all clear how concrete storagetypes are more "concrete"
      than their abstract relatives.
    • The text indicates that each storagetype must have its own home. Is
      that abstract types, concrete types, or both? Why? Whatever
      happened to polymorphism? If I have multiple storagetypes with
      similar or compatible keying properties, why cannot they all be
      indexed or managed together? I should only require a different home
      if the behavior is different. Even if a language mapping [read that
      as "implementation"] should require such, please don't make that a
      general limitation of the entire model. This is a very useful
      service; let's not restrict its utility or expressive power by
      playing to language limitations.
    • I can understand that you want to keep factory, finder, and
      management behavior separate from storage object behavior, but has
      anyone actually articulated the reasons behind this? (This also
      affects the component model.) What are they? I can see several
      reasons for keeping the factory and finder operations with the
      storagetype, in the same way valuetypes specify factory operations.
      I am also concerned about the apparently artificial complexity
      introduced by requiring parallel derivations of storagetypes and
      storagehomes. Why not generate the homes automatically when needed?
    • Why are keys placed on the storagehome? It would seem more logical
      that you define the keys (as properties) of the storagetype and then
      optionally map those to indices in a datastore, catalog, or
      storagehome. Perhaps we should indicate that, for a particular
      storagetype, certain state members may participate in a key. Why
      isn't at least one key identified as a primary key? Why cannot I
      explicitly define some keys as unique leaving others as non-unique to
      form inverted indices?
    • The text indicates that a concrete storagetype "implements" one or
      more abstract storagetypes. What does this mean? How is this
      accomplished? What are the navigation paradigms, especially for
      multiple storagetypes? What interfaces are expected? This whole
      concept is too weakly specified, and the example in section 10 is too
      simple to explain multiple type implementation.
    • What is the purpose of a catalog and its limitation of singleton
      instances of storagehomes? I can think of reasons why I would want
      multiple instances of a particular storagehome, especially for
      configuration management in the datastores. Can one have multiple
      catalogs, and if so, how do you select one of them, since "by name"
      might not be the best keying property?
  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    rejected

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

New PSS Issue: Interface Inheritance

  • Key: PSS-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4039
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    In the PSS specification (orbos/99-07-07), no provision is made for
    [abstract] storagetypes or [abstract] storagehomes to inherit from
    interface definitions. It appears this is an oversight as the omission
    does not seem reasonable. I have found cases in which a home would
    expose the same interface as a storage object, where the home
    subsequently delegates to a specific object however selected.
    Interfaces are a perfect mechanism whereby the operational signatures
    could be standardized, thus eliminating potential errors caused by
    changing one but not the other. Since storage objects are assumed to
    exhibit only local interface behavior, it would not matter whether the
    inheritance was from a local or remote interface definition. This could
    be accomplished using a supports clause in the inheritance specification
    similar to that of valuetypes.

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Tue, 14 Nov 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    rejected

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

Some others ways to get an abstract storage type reference

  • Key: PSS-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3978
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    At this time, the PSDL mapping does not provide a way to create an object
    and to directly get its reference. It means that if you want to have an
    abstract storage type reference, you only have to solution :

    • to use the _create operation from the storage home ( not very flexible )
    • to find an storage type thanks to a find_ref_by_xxx from the abstract
      storage home

    I think that the "factory" mapping should be changed :

    Currently : ( PSS spec, p 56 )

    factory create( accno );

    // it's like
    // Account create( in string accno )

    After changes :

    factory create( accno );
    <pre>
    // it's like
    // Account create( in string accno );
    // ref<Account> create_ref( in string accno );
    </pre>
    Moreover, the catalog currently provides : StorageObject find_by_pid( byte
    [] pid );

    It should be very useful to provide another method : StorageObjectRef
    find_ref_by_pid( byte [] pid );

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Mon, 23 Oct 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

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

New PSS Issue: Private state members

  • Key: PSS-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4042
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    In the PSDL grammar of the Persistent State Service, orbos/99-07-07,
    state members are merely declared. This makes all such members
    inherently public. What is the rationale behind public-only state
    members? Since storage objects are almost the same as valuetypes, it
    seems an obvious extension that any object, persistent or not, might
    have members that should not be exposed to external objects or even
    derived types. Could this syntax be changed to more closely resemble
    valuetypes? (See also issue 3226 on factory declarators and the
    (currently unnumbered) issues on scoping and grammar complexity.)

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Tue, 14 Nov 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    rejected

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

New PSS Issues: Full Scopes for Storage Objects

  • Key: PSS-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4041
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    In the PSDL grammar of the Persistent State Service, orbos/99-07-07, it
    specifically states that storage definitions are not full scopes. That
    is, they cannot contain type or constant definitions. What is the
    rationalebehind this limitation? Storage types and homes are almost the
    same as valuetypes. It seems perfectly reasonable to have embedded
    types local (encapsulated) to the storage scope that are for internal
    representations only.

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Tue, 14 Nov 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    rejected

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

usage of user defined catalogs unclear.

  • Key: PSS-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3252
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    To my mind the usage and mapping of user defined catalogs is weakly
    specified. It is not clearly described what is generated and what has to be
    implemented by user. Furthermore it is unclear, how to get access to an
    catalog. Subsequently I consider C++ only. I guess, a new implementation
    class has to be defined for each catalog, inheriting from the mapped class
    of that catalog and from Session. This is necessary to use the operation
    create_basic_session() returning a Session. Further I guess, the parameter
    catalog_type_name of this operation denotes a catalog supported by a prior
    registered user implemented session factory.
    Furthermore chapter 6.2 does not sufficiently explain the parameter
    storage_home_id of operation find_storage_home() from CatalogBase. In
    particular the sentence "In the case of type-specific catalogs (declared in
    PSDL), the provide declarations define valid storage_home_id parameters."
    allows multiple interpretations. What is meant?

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Wed, 26 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

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

New PSS Issue: Is the PSDL Grammar Too Complicated?

  • Key: PSS-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4040
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    When examining the PSDL grammar in the Persistent State Service,
    orbos/99-07-07, I came too the conclusion that it is over-specified.
    Looking through the IDL grammar, great care is taken to avoid
    overexpansion of the declarator productions. In particular, semantic
    rules are employed to restrict the use of scoped names (acting as types)
    in those situations where a particular use may be invalid. These rules
    could be applied in the same way to the declarator syntax for state
    members. Thus, there is no need to restrict the grammar to "abstract
    storagetype" types for declarators; any scoped name should work as
    elsewhere. Certainly, however, there should be semantic rules that only
    abstract storagetype types may be used in an abstract storagetype
    definition.

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Tue, 14 Nov 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    rejected

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

no parameter order for operations _create(...) defined

  • Key: PSS-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3644
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    A storagehome is mapped to a C++ class providing _create() member functions.
    In the specification is said, that there have to be parameters for all state
    members of the storagehomes storagetype, but the order is not defined.
    As a solution the parameter list could begin with the base type of the
    storage type, proceed with the leftmost implemented abstract storage type
    and end with the state members defined in the storage type itself. In every
    case the declaration order should be followed.

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Thu, 25 May 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

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

Mistakes in CosPersisentState.psdl presented in chapter 11.

  • Key: PSS-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3251
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    concerning mistakes in CosPersisentState.psdl presented in chapter 11.

    First, the keyword "factory" defined in chapter 7.2.2 is used as parameter
    name in the signature of the operations "register_XXX_factory()". Second,
    the declaration of ConnectorRegistry is not contained in the summary in
    chapter 11.

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Wed, 26 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

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

PSS FTF issue: PSS & Thread-Safety

  • Key: PSS-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3186
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ZeroC ( Bernard Normier)
  • Summary:

    The Persistent State Service draft specification does not say anything
    about thread-safety. For portability, it is necessary to define the
    guarantees provided by a thread-safe PSS implementation.

    Proposal
    --------
    A catalog (session or session pool) can be either thread-safe or
    thread-unsafe. A compliant implementation does not need to provide
    thread-safe catalogs.
    All objects provided directly or indirectly by a thread-unsafe
    catalog are thread-unsafe – the application must serialize access
    to any of these objects, typically by using a single thread.

    (1) A storage object incarnation provided by a thread-safe catalog
    is like a struct: concurrent reads are safe and do not require any
    locking by the application; concurrent writes (or a concurrent
    read and a concurrent write) are not thread-safe – the application
    must ensure mutual exclusion to avoid problems.
    Flushing a storage object is like reading this object. 'Refreshing'
    a storage object is like updating it.

    (2) Further, the following Session operations are not thread safe:
    they are not supposed to be called concurrently, and no thread
    should be using the target session (or anything in the target
    session, such as an incarnation or a storage home) when they are
    called:

    Session::free_all
    Session::refresh
    Session::close
    TransactionalSession::start
    TransactionalSession::suspend
    TransactionalSession::end

    OTS operations are however safe; for example one thread can call
    tx_current->rollback() while another thread calls start, suspend or
    end on a session involved in this transaction, or while a thread
    is using storage objects managed by that session.

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Fri, 7 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

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

PSS FTF issue: ConnectorRegistry made redundant by

  • Key: PSS-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3164
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ZeroC ( Bernard Normier)
  • Summary:

    The Joint Revised Portable Interceptor submission (document orbos/99-12-02)
    defines a new operation on the ORB interface, register_initial_reference.
    With this operation, there is no need for a separate ConnectorRegistry
    (local) object obtained from ORB::resolve_initial_references.

    In practice, I expect that calls to register_initial_reference will
    occur behind the scene – not in the middle of application code.

    For example with our new ORB (Orbix 2000), it is possible to use
    configuration to control the behavior of resolve_initial_references,
    in particular have resolve_initial_references dynamically load and
    initialize a plug-in. The plug-in per-ORB initialization calls
    register_initial_reference on the given ORB instance.

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Thu, 23 Dec 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

PSS-FTF issue: Need additional C++ helpers

  • Key: PSS-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3163
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ZeroC ( Bernard Normier)
  • Summary:

    Interfaces and other IDL constructs have lots of helpers that
    storage type don't have. In particular it would be useful to add

    • _out classes
    • _duplicate static functions
    • _downcast static functions
    • a CosPersistentState::release() static function that releases
      a ref-count on the given storage object instance (if not null),
      or releases the given CosPersistentState::StorageObjectRef.
  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Thu, 23 Dec 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

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

C++ mapping for PSDL storage object references

  • Key: PSS-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3162
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ZeroC ( Bernard Normier)
  • Summary:

    There is a number of problems with the C++ mapping for storage object
    references:

    • abstract storage type references are mapped to abstract C++ classes;
      this implies that references are dynamically allocated and freed,
      and typically handled through pointers.

    The dynamic allocation is expensive and error prone (risk of memory
    leaks), and handling 'smart pointers' through pointers to these smart
    pointers is very unusual.

    • The mapped C++ classes inherit from each other, to mimic the implicit
      widening of regular pointers.
      Using inheritance for this purpose is a mistake, since it does not
      correspond to the behavior of real pointers – if class B derives
      from class A, a B instance is a A, but a B* is not a A*, it is only
      implictly converted into an A*.
      The correct way to provide this implicit widening is through
      conversion operators.

    I propose to change the mapping and adopt concrete 'smart-pointer'
    ref classes, that applications allocate on the stack. The proposed
    mapping is implemented in Orbix2000 beta 2 (available from IONA
    web site).

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Thu, 23 Dec 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

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

The use of italics is wrong in some grammar rules

  • Key: PSS-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3070
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Humboldt-Universitaet ( Harald Boehme)
  • Summary:

    The use of italics is wrong in some grammar rules.
    In most cases only the "|" has to be non-itallic.

    In rule 10 local_op_dcl is also italic, but this
    nonterminal is not from IDL it is part of PSDL.

    The spec dosenĀ“t say to wich version of OMG IDL
    refers.

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

PSS: factory_dcl syntax

  • Key: PSS-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3226
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Humboldt-Universitaet ( Martin von Loewis)
  • Summary:

    The draft PSS specification, in section 1.3.2, uses the production
    <factory_dcl>. This production is not defined in the grammar
    summary. Instead, it is later given as

    <factory_dcl> ::= "factory" <identifier> <factory_parameters>
    <factory_parameters> ::=
    "(" <simple_declarator> [

    { "," <simple_declarator> }

    *] ")"

    "(" ")"

    This definition contradicts with the production <factory_dcl> from the
    CORBA components draft (ptc/99-10-04), where it is defined as

    *lt;factory_dcl> ::=
    "factory" <identifier> "(" [ <init_param_decls> ] ")" [
    <raises_expr> ]

    Here, the init_param_decls where introduced together with OBV
    (formal/98-12-01), where each parameter has an "in" direction and a
    type, and a name.

    There is also potential confusion with the init_dcl, which represents
    factories for value types.

    At a minimum, one of the production names should be changed, and it
    should be made clear which syntax is used for the "factory" keyword in
    what context. It would be even better if the syntax for factories is
    always the same.

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Mon, 17 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

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

PSS FTF: Read-only operations on storage objects

  • Key: PSS-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3192
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ZeroC ( Bernard Normier)
  • Summary:

    With some object oriented programming languages (C++, Ada95), it is
    possible to specify a method as read-only or read-write.
    For example in C++, a 'const' member function has read-only access
    to the data members of the target object.

    So far in IDL and PSDL, there is no way to mark an operation as
    read-only – this makes sense for interfaces, since a CORBA object
    exposes only operations, not state.
    For stateful objects, such as PSDL storage objects and IDL values,
    being able to specify an operation as read-only would be very
    useful. For example in C++ a 'in storage object' parameter
    could be mapped to a pointer to a const C++ object, which is exactly
    the semantics of 'in'. More generally, writing const-correct program
    in C++ (Ada etc.) with PSS would become possible.

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Fri, 7 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

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

PSS FTF issue: Restrictions on PSDL concrete types

  • Key: PSS-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3188
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ZeroC ( Bernard Normier)
  • Summary:

    A number of restrictions on concrete PSDL types have the effect
    to force PSS users to use abstract types. For example keys can
    only be defined on abstract storage homes, so in order to define
    a key (and the implied finder operations), a PSS user needs
    to define an abstract storage type and an abstract storage home.

    Accessing storage objects and storage homes through abstract
    storage types and homes provides flexibility (with some
    PSS implementations this allows you to switch from one PSS
    implementation to another one without recompiling or relinking
    the code that uses the storage objects) but is also more complex
    since it doubles the number of PSDL constructs you need.

    For applications that don't need this flexibility, abstract
    types are overkill – and make PSDL look quite complex to
    understand and use. I propose to review the restrictions
    on concrete types to make them usable without abstract types.

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Fri, 7 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

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

PSS: Mapping for catalogs and abstract storage homes

  • Key: PSS-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3227
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Humboldt-Universitaet ( Martin von Loewis)
  • Summary:

    In section 1.4.2 of the PSS draft, catalogs and abstract storage homes
    are mapped to local interfaces. However, it is not clear how the
    <catalog_body> and the <abstract_storagehome_body> is converted into
    the body of the local interface.

    In particular, the mapping for key and factory_dcl is not
    specified. Apparently, the intent is that the mapping follows the
    rules presented in section "Keys" and "Factory Operations" are applied

    • even though those sections talk about mapping to implementation
      languages, not to a local interface.

    Also, if this mapping in these sections is applied, the resulting
    operations consume and produce "ref<S>" values, which are not legal
    for operations in local interfaces (according to the Core
    specification of local interfaces).

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Mon, 17 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

PSS: provides_dcl production misnamed

  • Key: PSS-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3228
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Humboldt-Universitaet ( Martin von Loewis)
  • Summary:

    In the PSS draft, a production provides_dcl is used. The same
    production name is also used in the draft Core spec (ptc/99-10-03),
    where it means

    <provides_dcl> ::= "provides" <interface_type> <identifier>

    In the PSS draft, however, it is

    <provides_dcl> ::= "provides" <abstract_storagehome_name>
    <simple_declarator>;

    Because of this conflict, one of the productions must be renamed.

  • Reported: PSS 1.0b1 — Mon, 17 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — PSS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

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