Issue 1697:  P 5-44: use of base type (obv-rtf)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Revision
Severity:  Significant
Summary: Summary: On page 5-44, a new production has been added to the grammar to allow the use of ValueBase to be used as a base type.  (<base_type_spec> ::= ... | <value_type_spec). My concern is that all other types of base type specifiers have a PrimitiveKind.  However, either you guys forgot or didn"t want to have, that a value or ValueBase does not have a corresponding PrimitiveKind enum value.  This becomes essential later on when we want to go into the InterfaceRepository, and find that some type is a ValueBase, we will need to know this.  The easiest way to do this could be through a PrimitiveDef, where it"s def_kind attribute is a dk_Primitive, and to satisfy the IDLType interface for they type attribute, we could return a TCKind of tk_value or tk_ValueBase.  An alternate could be to not go the PrimitiveDef route and use a different approach.  Perhaps we could have a method in the Container or Repository interfaces called create_ValueBase.  This would be much like creating an unnamed type such as a sequence, a string, primitive, or array (i.e. get_primitive(), create_string(), etc. in the Repository interface).  This is less likely though because create_ValueBase would need to return a type.  We could return a ValueDef, but create_ValueBase wouldn"t have enough information passed to it to create on and besides, a ValueDef is named.  We could have a whole new definition interface called ValueBaseDef, but this way is a pain if you ask me.
 

Resolution: 
Revised Text:  fix as part of grammar revisions for CORBA 2.3
Actions taken:
July 20, 1998: received issue
July 30, 1998: closed issue
Discussion: 
 closed issue
End of Annotations:=====
Return-Path: <www>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 14:44:53 -0400
From: www
To: juergen@omg.org, web-incoming@omg.org
Subject: WWW Form output

Name: Frank Laub
Company: Inferno Graphics
Email: flaub@mindspring.com
Notification: Yes
Specification: Objects By Value
Section: 5.4, 5.5
Formal #: orbos/98-01-18
Version: 
Revision_Date: 2/10/98
Page: 5-44, 5-46 - 5-49
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
full_desc: 1.  On page 5-44, a new production has been added to the
grammar to allow the use of ValueBase to be used as a base type.
(<base_type_spec> ::= ... | <value_type_spec). My concern is that all
other types of base type specifiers have a PrimitiveKind.  However,
either you guys forgot or didn't want to have, that a value or
ValueBase does not have a corresponding PrimitiveKind enum value.
This becomes essential later on when we want to go into the
InterfaceRepository, and find that some type is a ValueBase, we will
need to know this.  The easiest way to do this could be through a
PrimitiveDef, where it's def_kind attribute is a dk_Primitive, and to
satisfy the IDLType interface for they type attribute, we could return
a TCKind of tk_value or tk_ValueBase.  An alternate could be to not go
the PrimitiveDef route and use a different approach.  Perhaps we could
have a method in the Container or Repository interfaces called
create_ValueBase.  This would be much like creating an unnamed type
such as a sequence, a string, primitive, or array
(i.e. get_primitive(), create_string(), etc. in the Repository
interface).  This is less likely though because create_ValueBase would
need to return a type.  We could return a ValueDef, but
create_ValueBase wouldn't have enough information passed to it to
create on and besides, a ValueDef is named.  We could have a whole new
definition interface called ValueBaseDef, but this way is a pain if
you ask me.