Issue 1615: Some explicit semantics seem to be missing in section5.8.6 (obv-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Revision Severity: Summary: Summary: Section 5.8.6 gives the BNF for the GIOP encoding of values but does not describe the semantics behind them. Some of the semantics are referred to in earlier section and intuitive for an outsider with a little CORBA experience. Some of the the explicit semantics seem to be missing altogether (e.g. the "+" in <end_tag>+). It would be useful if the descriptions explicitly used the names within the BNF grammar or explicit specifications for each name in the grammar was given. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: June 30, 1998: received issue July 30, 1998: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Return-Path: Sender: tim@protocol.com Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 17:45:56 -0700 From: Tim Brinson Organization: Protocol Systems, Inc. To: issues@omg.org, obv-rtf@omg.org Subject: OBV Efficiency Issue (and a couple others) OBV RTF Members, A month or two ago I looked at the OBV spec as we are considering using values in responses to other OMG RFPs. I thought there might be an efficiency problem due to the over head number of bytes used to send a value. The current discussions about the encoding proposals caused me to look at the marshaling format again. As I recall one of the goals stated by an initial submitter to OBV (I don't remember who) is that values could be used for data objects (structs with inheritance) with no more over head than a plain struct. I do understand that could not be achieved in order to pass inherited types (and probably other issues). Of course it is desirable (from a user's point of view) to pass these values efficiently. Repository IDs can use indirection but 5.8.2 second sentence indicates 'This can be either a URL which has already been encoded, or another value object which is shared in a graph'. I believe this only applies when the indirection is for a value type or codebase and not for a Repository ID. Either 'or a Repository ID' should be added to this or remove the sentence altogether or indicate the examples listed are an incomplete set. Return-Path: Sender: "Jon Goldberg" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 19:42:27 -0700 From: Jon Goldberg To: Tim Brinson CC: issues@omg.org, obv-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: OBV Efficiency Issue (and a couple others) References: Hi Tim- I'd like to consider the efficiency issue a bit more before responding to that one. On the other issues... Tim Brinson wrote: > > > Issue 2: > ------- > > Repository IDs can use indirection but 5.8.2 second sentence > indicates > 'This can be either a URL which has already been encoded, or another > value object which is shared in a graph'. I believe this only > applies > when the indirection is for a value type or codebase and not for a > Repository ID. Either 'or a Repository ID' should be added to this > or > remove the sentence altogether or indicate the examples listed are > an > incomplete set. Repository ID needs to be added to this list.