Issues for 2nd CORBA/e Finalization Task Force

List of issues (green=resolved, yellow=pending Board vote, red=unresolved)

List options: All ; Open Issues only; or Closed Issues only

Issue 10598: The use of Full Services definitions in CORBA/e spec
Issue 12512: CORBA section 11 struct PortableGroup::GroupInfo
Issue 16109: Technology Related Questions - CORBA/e Mutex Interface

Issue 10598: The use of Full Services definitions in CORBA/e spec (corba-e-ftf)

Problem:

 

Since CORBA/e is for embedded constrained systems, one should be using LW Services as a minimal compliant point this would still allow one to offer up a Full Services in its offering but the other way around would not be compliant.

 

Suggested Change

The suggested change is to use LW Services definitions for CORBA/e.

Consensus was not reached on this issue in time.

In chapter 11 'Unreliable Mulicast Inter-ORB Protocol' the struct PortableGroup::GroupInfo is discussed. However in the consolidated IDL and the IDL available from the OMG web site, this struct has been replaced by PortableGroup::TagGroupTaggedComponent. Which is correct?

I have a question and perhaps a bug to report in the CORBA/e v1.0 IDL files.   According to the specification “formal/2008-11-06”, the Compliance heading in chapter 12 says implementations of the CORBA/e Micro Profile must comply with 12.8­the Mutex interface.  Does this mean all of 12.8, including RTCORBA::Mutex and the portions of RTCORBA::RTORB that are shown in the chapter?   If so, there is an error in the preprocessor directives contained in accompanying IDL file: http://www.omg.org/spec/CORBAe/20080201/RTCORBA.idl.
 
If the IDL file is correct, then a CORBA/e Micro implementation should not implement any of RTORB, even create_mutex() and destroy_mutex().  See line 174 of the IDL.  I am assuming that the specification is correct and the IDL is in error, but some clarification would be appreciated.