Issues for Portable Interceptors Revision Task Force mailing list

To comment on any of these issues, send email to [email protected]. (Please include the issue number in the Subject: header, thusly: [Issue ###].) To submit a new issue, send email to [email protected].

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

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

Jira Issues

Issue 3769: Example of ORBInitializer usage needed Jira Issue ZZPOI11-1
Issue 3981: table 4-1, page 63 has a mistake in its list for TRANSIENT minor codes Jira Issue ZZPOI11-2

Issue 3769: Example of ORBInitializer usage needed (interceptors-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Phil Adams, pcadams(at)us.ibm.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

I have a general question which pertains to the recommended approach that  a service writer would use to derive various interfaces from the  PI-defined interfaces (e.g. ORBInitializer, IORInterceptor, etc.).   I'm  primarily interested in the C++ mapping since I'm trying to implement PI  in a C++ ORB.  As a means of providing the answer, would it be possible  for someone to post an example of how a service writer would implement an  ORBInitializer in order to register a request interceptor?   My main  curiousity would be how the user would define his own  ORBInitializer-derived interface (would it be in IDL or straight C++?),  how his "implementation" class would be declared/defined, etc.   I don't  see any examples of this in the spec (I know, the spec should not be  bogged down with such details :-) ), but if we're going to provide  "portable" interceptors we need to make sure that the user's code can be  "portable", right?   Anyway, I would appreciate it if someone could  provide an example which outlined the various classes that would be  involved (some of the classes will be the result of emitting the PI idl,  and other classes will belong to the user).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 27, 2000: received issue

Issue 3981: table 4-1, page 63 has a mistake in its list for TRANSIENT minor codes (interceptors-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Oracle (Dr. Harold Carr, Ph.D., nobody)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

ptc/00-08-06 table 4-1, page 63 has a mistake in its list for  TRANSIENT minor codes.  It lists the number 2 for both "No usable  profile in IOR" and "Request cancelled".  The value for Request  cancelled should be 3 (see same doc section 21.3.7.2 page 211 second  paragraph ).     Also, "Request cancelled" is misspelled.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 23, 2000: received issue
October 24, 2000: moved to Interceptors RTF

Discussion:

Resolution:  Close issue with no change.     Note, ptc/01-03-04, which was the basis for CORBA 2.5, does not contain this error. It was fixed editorially. Therefore no further change is necessary.