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

Realtime CORBA 1.1 FTF — Closed Issues

  • Key: RT11
  • Issues Count: 10
Open Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Descriptions

Modify document in accordance with changes from Components

  • Key: RT11-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3594
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Objective Interface Systems ( Mr. Bill Beckwith)
  • Summary:

    Since the Components specification modifies the Real-Time CORBA 1.0
    specification we should update the document to reflect the changes.

  • Reported: RT 1.0 — Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RT 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

default priority transform

  • Key: RT11-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3583
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Jon Currey)
  • Summary:

    The first paragraph on page 41 says that :
    'A Real-Time ORB shall provide a default transform. Furthermore, a Real-Time
    ORB shall provide a mechanism to allow users to override the default priority
    transform with a priority transform or their own.'

    The second statement is true, but the first is not. (That is, we did not decide
    that
    there would be such a thing as a default priority transform.) The priority
    transform
    mechanism was specified in order to allow users to install their own modifiers to
    the two Real-Time CORBA Priority Models. By default, no transform is required.
    Therefore, I propose that we drop the first sentence, and change the second one
    to make its point correctly :

    Proposal :
    Change this paragraph to :
    'A Real-Time ORB shall provide a mechanism to allow users to install a
    priority transform'.
    As this is a single sentence, add it to the end of the following paragraph (which
    actually introduces it and is therefore better before it.)

  • Reported: RT 1.0 — Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RT 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

Definition of "the_priority" ambiguous and incomplete

  • Key: RT11-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3457
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Objective Interface Systems ( Mr. Bill Beckwith)
  • Summary:

    The specification implies but does not clearly state that
    the "the_priority" attribute of the RTCORBA::Current local
    interface should set and get the base priority of the thread.

    I suggest that the following three modifications to the
    specification:

    1. change the name of the "the_priority" attribute to
    "base_priority";

    2. add another priority attribute to RTCORBA::Current called
    "active_priority"; and

    3. replace the second paragraph in section 4.6 which currently
    reads:

    A Real-Time CORBA Priority may be associated with
    the current thread, by setting the priority attribute
    of the RTCORBA::Current object:

    with:

    There are two views of CORBA priority for a given thread:
    the base priority and• the active priority.

    The base priority is the priority that application code
    explicitly sets. The active priority is the priority the
    thread is currently running at. Note that the active
    priority may temporarily be higher than the base priority
    because of temporary priority boosts caused by either the
    ORB's or the O/S's resource protection mechanisms.

    There are two attributes in the RTCORBA::Current interface
    for setting and getting these two views of priority:

  • Reported: RT 1.0 — Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RT 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

calling of Priority Transform outside of context of an invocation

  • Key: RT11-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3585
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Jon Currey)
  • Summary:

    The last sentence of the third paragraph of section 4.8 (on page 40) reads
    'If the outbound transform is called outside the context of an invocation then
    there is no ObjectId and the ORB shall not invoke the transform function.'

    This sentence is not clear, and sounds almost self-contradictory ('if called ...
    not invoked...').

    I believe what this is trying to say is that the outbound transform is not
    called for invocations from client application threads. i.e. that it is only
    called for onward invocations, being made from within servant code.

    I think that this is actually an arbitrary restriction. It would be acceptable
    to allow the transform to be called for client-side invocations, as these
    would be distinguishable by the fact that the passed ObjectId would be
    null.

    Even if we want to keep the restriction, I think the wording should be
    improved. Therefore I have two alternative proposals :

    Proposal A : (If we want to remove this restriction.)
    Change this sentence to read :
    'For invocations not made from another CORBA Object (i.e. made from
    an application thread), the outbound transform is still called, with a null
    value for the ObjectId parameter. The transform implementor has the
    option of leaving the priority unmodified in this case.'

    Proposal B : (If we want to keep this restriction)
    Change this sentence to read :
    'The outbound priority transform is not called for invocations made from
    application threads (i.e. calls that are not made from servant code.)'

  • Reported: RT 1.0 — Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RT 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

Success of activate_object_id_with_id_and_priority

  • Key: RT11-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3584
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Jon Currey)
  • Summary:

    The last paragraph on page 39 of ptc/99-06-02 (section 4.7.5) states that
    'If the priority value is the same then the ORB shall return SUCCESS.'

    This is describing behaviour for the operation RTPortableServer::
    activate_object_with_id_and_priority, which has a void return type.
    If this is refering to not throwing an exception, then the wording is not
    very clear.'

    Proposal : Change this sentence to :
    'If the priority value is the same then the operation will be successful.'

  • Reported: RT 1.0 — Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RT 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

Policy overrides on RTPortableServer::POA

  • Key: RT11-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3456
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Objective Interface Systems ( Mr. Bill Beckwith)
  • Summary:

    It is implicit that you can override policies on RTPortableServer::POA
    since it inherits from CORBA::Object. This should be explicitly
    stated.

  • Reported: RT 1.0 — Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RT 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    close issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

Policy overrides on RTCORBA::RTORB

  • Key: RT11-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3455
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Objective Interface Systems ( Mr. Bill Beckwith)
  • Summary:

    It is implicit that you can override policies on RTCORBA::RTORB
    since it inherits from CORBA::Object. This should be explicitly
    stated.

  • Reported: RT 1.0 — Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RT 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    close issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

Policy overrides on RTCORBA::Current

  • Key: RT11-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3454
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Objective Interface Systems ( Mr. Bill Beckwith)
  • Summary:

    It is implicit that you can override policies on RTCORBA::Current
    since it inherits from CORBA::Object. This should be explicitly
    stated.

  • Reported: RT 1.0 — Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RT 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

Documentation of GIOPProtocolProperties

  • Key: RT11-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3453
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Objective Interface Systems ( Mr. Bill Beckwith)
  • Summary:

    GIOPProtocolProperties no stated purpose. This needs to be clarified
    in the specification.

  • Reported: RT 1.0 — Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RT 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

No factory for protocol properties

  • Key: RT11-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3452
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Objective Interface Systems ( Mr. Bill Beckwith)
  • Summary:

    There is no standard factory method for users to create ProtocolProperties,
    TCPProtocolProperties, or GIOPProtocolProperties.

  • Reported: RT 1.0 — Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RT 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT