Issue 15835: DDS should require to annotate IDL to indicate which IDL types are used for dds (data-distribution-rtf) Source: Remedy IT (Mr. Johnny Willemsen, jwillemsen(at)remedy.nl) Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant Summary: In a CCM/DDS4CCM based system not all IDL defined types are intended to be used with dds. At this moment there is not a standardized way to indicate that a type should be usable with DDS. If I now have a large file with a lot of types, DDS just assumes that everything should be transmittable through DDS and generates a lot of code. Just like can indicate the keys of a struct, I think DDS should define a standardized way to annotate the idl so that just some types in a file are handled by the dds tooling Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: November 17, 2010: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 17 Nov 2010 13:29:21 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Johnny Willemsen Employer: Remedy IT mailFrom: jwillemsen@remedy.nl Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: DDS Section: 7.2.3 FormalNumber: 07-01-01 Version: 1.2 Doc_Year: 2007 Doc_Month: January Doc_Day: 01 Page: 145 Title: DDS should require to annotate IDL to indicate which IDL types are used for dds Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: In a CCM/DDS4CCM based system not all IDL defined types are intended to be used with dds. At this moment there is not a standardized way to indicate that a type should be usable with DDS. If I now have a large file with a lot of types, DDS just assumes that everything should be transmittable through DDS and generates a lot of code. Just like can indicate the keys of a struct, I think DDS should define a standardized way to annotate the idl so that just some types in a file are handled by the dds tooling