Issues for Event RTF mailing list

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

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

Issue 4338: event channel buffer should generate exception when buffer beg. to overflow
Issue 4651: pull request/destroy request issue
Issue 5904: 2.3.1 The EventChannel Interface
Issue 5905: meaning of "dispose(d)" throughout this specification.
Issue 9815: Specification: Event Service -- IDL section

Issue 4338: event channel buffer should generate exception when buffer beg. to overflow (event-rtf)

The Event Service spec should be revised to include a mandatory throwing of
an exception if an Event Channel buffer begins to overflow.  This exception
should be able to be caught by both the server and client applications.  The
reason is that without an exception, the Event Service is making a implicit
comment on the value of an individual message.  Although the Event Service
paradigm is publish/subscribe, there may be uses within that context when
the dropping of a single message is critical.  Without implementing
traditional message tracking solutions such as the sequencing messages,
there is currently no way of knowing if a message has been dropped.  The
throwing of an exception that can be caught, or not caught, seems to be a
reasonable solution. It would also increase the value of the services
currently provided by the Event Service.

The event service specification states: "The pull operation blocks until the event data is available or an exception is raised." 

If there are pull requests pending (because no data is available) and a destroy request is issued, do the pull requests have to return with a "Disconnected" exception ? 

Remember (p. 2-9): The destroy request should destroy all admin and proxy objects associated, so the proxies being pulled might not be active any more. 

Testing some notification implementations (e.g. OpenOrb, OpenFusion and dCon) showed that none of them returned from pull request in reasonable time: http://asi28.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/test/Hanging_Pull.java 

If the pull requests are not supposed to return with an exception, what is the intended way to abort the requests, so that channel and client resources can be reclaimed ?

The first issue is whether one EventChannel has at most one or more ConsumerAdmin objects (and similarly for both Typed... and Supplier..., orthogonally). On the one hand, the specification says things like "Destruction of a ConsumerAdmin or SupplierAdmin object causes the implementation to invoke the disconnect operation on all proxies that were created via that ConsumerAdmin or SupplierAdmin object." (same section, previous page), on the other it says something like this conflicting "In such a case, the creator would simply export *the* ConsumerAdmin object." (my *emphasis*). Also, the only time a ConsumerAdmin is destroyed is when its EventChannel is destroyed, because only the EventChannel has a destroy-like operation, so there might as well be at most one ConsumerAdmin. The specification should therefore be more explicit about cardinality (and perhaps replace or back up the potato diagrams with UML ones). My current bet is that there is at most one of each ...Admin, and that the Proxy... objects are owned directly by the EventChannel (I went that way before I spotted the discrepancy): is that correct? 
I need to know because I am implementing (not just using) an Event Service as part of RayORB, and, other than verifying interoperability with Java, I am trying to make this a clean-room implementation, from the specifications only. I may also look at the Notification Service Specification, but this specification should be self-contained. 
I have grouped some errors below that require no clarification, because their appropriate correction is clear. 
There is a typing error "ProsyPushSupplier" in "2.3.7 The ProxyPushSupplier Interface", ironically two lines below the word "TypeError". 
There is an IDL error in "2.7 The CosTypedEventChannelAdmin Module": "ProxyPullConsumer obtain_typed_pull_consumer" must be corrected to "CosEventChannelAdmin::ProxyPullConsumer obtain_typed_pull_consumer" for successful compilation, and likewise "ProxyPushSupplier obtain_typed_push_supplier" must become "CosEventChannelAdmin::ProxyPushSupplier obtain_typed_push_supplier". 
In Appendix B, the example uses ...Ref, which, as far back as CORBA 2.2 (the first version I've worked with), is deprecated for C++. Unless I'm mistaken, the use of an environment is only required for C++ compilers that do not support exceptions (are there any left?), and is more distracting than educational. Please update to agree with the current mapping specification. 

This is about the meaning of "dispose(d)" throughout this specification. "dispose" does not occur in all of CORBA 3.0 (02-06-01.pdf), so I have no clear idea of what it means. 

As a possible interpretation, it makes no sense that a reference would be *released*, as a result of calling an operation through it. It would make sense if a PushConsumer's PushSupplier object reference were released when the PushConsumer executes a disconnect_push_supplier(), but "2.1.1 The PushConsumer Interface" specifically says "The PushConsumer object reference is disposed.". 

I can accept that a proxy would be *destroyed* when it is disconnected, because it is dedicated to a specific event relationship, and implied destruction would be a convenience there, but, other than "Figure 2-6 State diagram of a proxy." in "2.2.5 Event Channel Administration" on p. 2-8, I see nothing to emphasise this as a difference with plain (non-proxy) end points. Yet, as I see it, plain end points may be long-lived objects, that may engage in several event-passing relationships during their lifetimes. There is no possibility for the "infinite recursive calls to these disconnect operations" that "2.1.5 Disconnection Behavior" mentions if the reference to the other side is simply released after sending it a disconnect; there is no need to destroy anything for that purpose, or faking OBJECT_NOT_EXIST. So why do I get the impression that the revision to the Event Service Specification wants those non-proxy end points to be destroyed as well, although not unequivocally? 

It all looks rather messy, especially the thing about the inappropriate OBJECT_NOT_EXIST. And yet, I need to know for certain, to ensure interoperability and portability (I am currently implementing an Event Service for RayORB, not just using one). 

And can I make a suggestion on the side: there should be a document comprising known errata and issues for every official document, to avoid duplicate reports. w3c.org seems to do a good job of helping itself that way. 

There are incorrect comments in the posted complete IDL file referring to the Naming Service. In addition this IDL only reflects the Lightweight Event Service and not the full Event Service IDL.