Issue 1136:  Typecode equality (interop)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Summary: I just stumbled on the following paragraph in 13.3.4 describing the CDR
 encoding of TypeCodes:
 
 "The name parameters in tk_objref, tk_struct, tk_union, tk_enum,
 tk_alias, and tk_except TypeCodes and the member name parameters in
 tk_struct, tk_union, tk_enum and tk_except TypeCodes are not specified
 by (or significant in) GIOP. Agents should not make assumptions about
 type equivalence based on these name values; only the structural
 information (including RepositoryId values, if provided) is significant.
 If provided, the strings should be the simple, unscoped names supplied
 in the OMG IDL definition text. If omitted, they are encoded as empty
 strings."
 
 This would suggest that the name and member name parts of a typecode
 should never be considered significant when an ORB compares typecodes.
 
 Of course, this still leaves the issue of what to do about aliases up in
 the air.
 

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
March 29, 1998: received issue
February 17, 1999: closed issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
Return-Path: <jon@floorboard.com>
Sender: jon@floorboard.com
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:43:56 -0800
From: Jonathan Biggar <jon@floorboard.com>
To: orb_revision@omg.org
Subject: More on Typecode equality

I just stumbled on the following paragraph in 13.3.4 describing the
CDR
encoding of TypeCodes:

"The name parameters in tk_objref, tk_struct, tk_union, tk_enum,
tk_alias, and tk_except TypeCodes and the member name parameters in
tk_struct, tk_union, tk_enum and tk_except TypeCodes are not specified
by (or significant in) GIOP. Agents should not make assumptions about
type equivalence based on these name values; only the structural
information (including RepositoryId values, if provided) is
significant.
If provided, the strings should be the simple, unscoped names supplied
in the OMG IDL definition text. If omitted, they are encoded as empty
strings."

This would suggest that the name and member name parts of a typecode
should never be considered significant when an ORB compares typecodes.

Of course, this still leaves the issue of what to do about aliases up
in
the air.

-- 
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
jon@floorboard.com
jon@biggar.org