Issue 133: Repository IDs (orb_revision) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Severity: Summary: Summary: I would expect a lookup on IDL:/CORBA/Object:1.0 to return an InterfaceDef. It would seem more logical if Object was represented by a "default" InterfaceDef in the repository. Resolution: resolved, close issue Revised Text: Actions taken: September 23, 1996: Received issue February 26, 1998: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Return-Path: From: Martin Chapman Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 12:18:36 +0100 To: Paul Rabin CC: orb_revision@omg.org Subject: [tcross@iona.com: IFR issues at OMG] Paul, As promised at a conf call a few weeks ago, we have looked at the currently logged IFR issues. Terence Cross trawled through them and here is his response (marked TC>). Terence can be available for a core rtf conf call to try and resolve these. Let us know when its on the agenda. Martin. ---- Report on open IFR issues at OMG 2.1 task force ----------------------------------------------- General ------- A call needs to be made as to whether or not IDL definned exceptions should be included in the IFR module. It would be quite a large change but would be more in-line with other services to add IFR specific exceptions. Also I had thought that I raised an issue about repository IDs, that the default format would include a null prefix followed by a slash. I dont see it there can I raise it now? Also another issue is that I cant see any operations that allow for the creation of ExceptionDef objects. I would expect the following within interface Container: ExceptionDef create_exception ( in RepositoryId id, in Identifier name, in VersionSpec version, in StructMemberSeq members ); Issue 133: Repository IDs Source: ICL (Mr. Paul Gardner, nobody p.gardner.slh0631@oasis.icl.co.uk) Nature: Uncategorized Severity: Summary: I would expect a lookup on IDL:/CORBA/Object:1.0 to return an InterfaceDef. It would seem more logical if Object was represented by a "default" InterfaceDef in the repository. Resolution: Actions taken: 09/23/1996: Received issue TC> Dont agree, it is assumed that all CORBA objects inherit from the TC> pseudo object Object. It is simpler not to have everthing showing TC> Object as the ultimate base. TC> Close issue. Return-Path: X-Sender: rabin@postman.opengroup.org Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 15:09:04 -0500 To: orb_revision@omg.org From: Paul Rabin Subject: CORBA Core changes for 2.3 Cc: jis@fpk.hp.com Dear Core RTF members, You've seen Jishnu's mail giving the URL for Core changes generated by the Security RTF - ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/secrtf/V2_3CoreSecurityChanges.pdf. Please review this document carefully. For procedural reasons, these changes need to be submitted to the PTC by the Core RTF rather than the Security RTF, so if you are a voting member of the Core RTF, and you have any objection to these changes being included in the final report of the Core RTF, please let us know asap. Silence will be taken as approval. As Jishnu mentioned, this set of changes does not include the changes needed for interceptors. If the Security RTF reaches agreement on the core changes for interceptors in the next couple of days, these will also need to be reviewed quickly by the Core RTF. Aside from the Core changes developed by the Security RTF, the following changes have been discussed in meetings of the Core RTF, and are proposed for inclusion in CORBA 2.3: Issue: 133 Referenced Text: CORBA 2.1, section 7.5.4 Comment: (1) Does lookup on IDL:/CORBA/Object:1.0 return an InterfaceDef? (2) Do all CORBA objects show Object as the ultimate base class? Proposed Change: NONE Rationale: (1) It is unspecified whether lookup on Object succeeds or fails. (2) It is unspecified whether IR operations return Object as the ultimate base class for all CORBA objects. Proposed Issue Status: CLOSED