Issue 1817: Status of hashed repository IDs (obv-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Revision Severity: Summary: Summary: The OBV spec orbos/98-01-18 introduces a new repository ID mechanism. It says in 5.6.2.1 >> We don"t recommand the classic id format "IDL:" <scoped name> ":" >> <major> "." <minor> because it is not "foolproof" enough. (It is of >> course allowable to use this format, since the CORE specification >> does not mandate any particular form.) The last sentence is not entirely correct, as 8.6.4 of formal/98-02-33 specifies >> A definition is globally identified by an OMG IDL - format >> RepositoryId if no ID pragma is encountered for it. The issue is whether the OBV specification changes this default for values or not Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: August 14, 1998: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Return-Path: Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:48:49 +0200 From: Martin von Loewis To: issues@omg.org, obv-rtf@omg.org Subject: Status of hashed repository IDs The OBV spec orbos/98-01-18 introduces a new repository ID mechanism. It says in 5.6.2.1 >> We don't recommand the classic id format "IDL:" ":" >> "." because it is not "foolproof" enough. (It is of >> course allowable to use this format, since the CORE specification >> does not mandate any particular form.) The last sentence is not entirely correct, as 8.6.4 of formal/98-02-33 specifies >> A definition is globally identified by an OMG IDL - format >> RepositoryId if no ID pragma is encountered for it. The issue is whether the OBV specification changes this default for values or not. If the "IDL:" format is still the default, the advantage of the new format is not obvious, as the user would have to assign the "H:" format using ID pragmas manually everytime the IDL changes. The specification should clarify whether the "H:" format is the default for some IDL entities in case no pragmas are present. -- Martin v. Lvwis loewis@informatik.hu-berlin.de