Issue 1380:  Sections 5.3.1.2 vs. 6.3.1: Mapping of non-public state to java private (obv-rtf)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Summary: Section 5.3.1.2 says that non-public data members should be mapped
 so that "the private part of the state is only accessible to the
 implementation code and the marshaling routines."
 
 Section 6.3.1 says that non-public data members are mapped to
 private instance variables.
 
 The problem is that the Java marshaling routines are in the Helper
 class, which cannot see private instance variables in the value class.
 
 The proposed solution is to modify the Java mapping to map the default
 IDL state to the default (package visibility) Java state instead of
 private.
 

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
May 15, 1998: received issue
July 30, 1998: closed issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
Return-Path: <krochat@austin.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:30:19 -0500
From: Kim Rochat <krochat@austin.ibm.com>
Reply-To: krochat@austin.ibm.com
To: issues@omg.org
CC: leou@us.ibm.com, kimt@us.ibm.com
Subject: OBV-RTF: Sections 5.3.1.2 vs. 6.3.1: Issue with mapping of
non-public state to Java private

Document: Objects by Value (orbos 98-01-18)
Source: IBM Corporation (Kim Rochat, krochat@austin.ibm.com)
Summary:
Section 5.3.1.2 says that non-public data members should be mapped
so that "the private part of the state is only accessible to the
implementation code and the marshaling routines."

Section 6.3.1 says that non-public data members are mapped to
private instance variables.

The problem is that the Java marshaling routines are in the Helper
class, which cannot see private instance variables in the value class.

The proposed solution is to modify the Java mapping to map the default
IDL state to the default (package visibility) Java state instead of
private.