Issue 1143: Chapter 9.8.1 Local stubs-bug (java-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Summary: Chapter 9.8.1 Says "Local stubs are defined to be direct base classes of remote stubs" Does it matter? It is the opposite way as proposed in the drawing in chapter 6.4 MORE FAR-FETCHED IDEA What if the Operations interface would not contain the inheritance relationship? Wouldn"t that be a step in the direction of being able to implement independent interfaces with one class. (To be functional this would need matching changes in the tie class) Resolution: closed issue Revised Text: Actions taken: April 16, 1998: received issue May 18, 1998: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Return-Path: X-NS-Transport-ID: 080037014071933138A6 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 17:07:51 PDT Sender: Christian_P_Jacobi.PARC@xerox.com From: jacobi.PARC@Xerox.com Subject: Portability IDL/Java, POA_Interface To: java-rtf@omg.org cc: jacobi.PARC@Xerox.com, ilu-core.PARC@Xerox.com Reply-to: Christian_P_Jacobi.PARC@xerox.com (about orbos/98-03-10) Chapter 9.8.1 Says "Local stubs are defined to be direct base classes of remote stubs" Does it matter? It is the opposite way as proposed in the drawing in chapter 6.4 MORE FAR-FETCHED IDEA What if the Operations interface would not contain the inheritance relationship? Wouldn't that be a step in the direction of being able to implement independent interfaces with one class. (To be functional this would need matching changes in the tie class) Chris jacobi@parc.xerox.com Return-Path: Sender: "George M. Scott" Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 17:34:46 -0700 From: "George M. Scott" Organization: Borland International, Inc. To: Christian_P_Jacobi.PARC@xerox.com CC: java-rtf@omg.org, jacobi.PARC@Xerox.com, ilu-core.PARC@Xerox.com Subject: Re: Portability IDL/Java, POA_Interface References: <98Apr15.170831pdt."51955(2)"@alpha.xerox.com> jacobi.PARC@Xerox.com wrote: > (about orbos/98-03-10) > > BUGS > > Chapter 5.2.4 > class POA_ is supposed to implement > Operations. > > However neither specification nor the example contain any > operations method. The class also are not specified abstract. Yes, these are both bugs. The classes should be marked abstract.And an ellipsis "..." should be included before the closing curly brace of each class definition. The DSI-based code for these method implementation is too complex to show here, IMHO. > Chapter 9.8.1 > Says "Local stubs are defined to be direct base classes of remote > stubs" > Does it matter? It is the opposite way as proposed in the drawing > in > chapter 6.4 That sentence should read "Local stubs are defined to be direct sub-classes of remote stubs". It matters for portability. I'm not sure if they need to be "direct" sub classes, but they need to at least be a sub-class. ORBs need to be able to rely on this behavior. > MORE FAR-FETCHED IDEA > > What if the Operations interface would not contain the inheritance > relationship? Wouldn't that be a step in the direction of being able > to implement independent interfaces with one class. (To be > functional this would need matching changes in the tie class) I'm not sure I follow what you are saying, could you provide an example. Thanks. George