Issue 1080:  ConstrainViolation vs. ConstraintError confusion (editorial) (mof-rtf)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Revision
Severity: 
Summary: Summary: Paragraph 5.3.3 calls ConstraintViolation an exception,
 although it is a structure.  Also, paragraph 7.3.5 shows the
 Type Create template as potentially generating an operation
 which raises a Reflective::ConstraintViolation, but since
 it is a struct, this would generate illegal code.
 References to ConstraintViolation as an exception should
 instead refer to the exception "wrapper", ConstraintError.
 

Resolution: closed, resolved
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
March 18, 1998: received issue
July 23, 1999: closed issue
Discussion: 
Response: Yes, this should be fixed as suggested in Sections 5.3.3 and 7.3.5.
Resolution. The MOF-RTF meeting in Manchester agreed to the above. To be implemented.
Implementation: The resolution of “Issue 1085: Consider a better approach to gen-erated
exceptions (mof-rtf)” resulted in rewriting of all of the refer-enced
material, eliminated ConstraintViolation in the process.
Done. [SC]
End of Annotations:=====
Return-Path: <GK.Khalsa@unisys.com>
From: "Khalsa, GK" <GK.Khalsa@unisys.com>
To: issues@omg.org, mof-rtf@omg.org
Subject: MOF-RTF: ConstraintViolation vs. ConstraintError confusion
(edito
	rial problem)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:19:39 -0800

Paragraph 5.3.3 calls ConstraintViolation an exception,
although it is a structure.  Also, paragraph 7.3.5 shows the
Type Create template as potentially generating an operation
which raises a Reflective::ConstraintViolation, but since
it is a struct, this would generate illegal code.
References to ConstraintViolation as an exception should
instead refer to the exception "wrapper", ConstraintError.