Issue 1837:  Modifications to the CORBA transaction service need to be addressed                                                                                                                                    (ots-rtf)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Summary: The recently (recommended for adoption)
 messaging specification included a number of changes to the CORBA
 transaction service to support CORBA messaging. Those changes, specified as
 modofications to the CORBA transaction service (OTS 1.1), need to be
 included in the next revision of OTS to be produced by the OTS RTF.
 

Resolution: Close without action. (OTS RTFs are not responsible for publishing new revisions of the specificatio
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
August 18, 1998: received issue
January 16, 2001: closed issue
Discussion: 
The resolution for this issue is to simply close it without action since the OTS RTF is not responsible for publishing  the changes
made from other RTFs. This is the responsibility of the AB/PTC. 

End of Annotations:=====
Return-Path: <ed.cobb@beasys.com>
X-Sender: ecobb@svlhome2.beasys.com
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 14:03:44 -0700
To: Juergen Boldt <juergen@omg.org>
From: Ed Cobb <ed.cobb@beasys.com>
Subject: Re: OTS RTF

        Issue Description - The recently (recommended for adoption)
messaging specification included a number of changes to the CORBA
transaction service to support CORBA messaging. Those changes,
specified as
modofications to the CORBA transaction service (OTS 1.1), need to be
included in the next revision of OTS to be produced by the OTS RTF.

        Also, if you will forward me a list of all the active issues
posted
against transactions (I  forgotten how to retrieve that), I'd
appreciate it.

At 04:50 PM 8/18/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Sure...no problem....send the issue< I'll assign the number and
broadcast
>
>
>-Juergen
>
>
>At 01:50 PM 8/18/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>        Juergen, will you post an issue to the OTS RTF to
incorporate the
>>changes specified by the recently adopted messaging specification?
I'd like
>>to make sure that our revised document has the messaging changes
included.
>>Thanks
>>**************************************************************
>>Ed Cobb, Technical Director, Systems Architecture
>>BEA Systems, Inc., 385 Moffett Park Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089
>>Tel: 408-542-4264 / Fax: 408-744-0775
>>E-mail: ed.cobb@beasys.com
>>**************************************************************
>>
>>
>>
>================================================================
>
>Juergen Boldt
>Technical Process Manager
>
>Object Management Group                Tel. +1-508-820 4300  ext. 132
>Framingham Corporate Center            Fax: +1-508-820 4303
>492 Old Connecticut Path               Email: juergen@omg.org
>Framingham, MA 01701                   
>
>================================================================
>
>
**************************************************************
Ed Cobb, Technical Director, Systems Architecture
BEA Systems, Inc., 385 Moffett Park Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Tel: 408-542-4264 / Fax: 408-744-0775
E-mail: ed.cobb@beasys.com
**************************************************************



Sender: jbiggar@floorboard.com
Message-ID: <38501D81.DCC8686@floorboard.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 13:22:09 -0800
From: Jonathan Biggar <jon@floorboard.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Blake Biesecker <blakeb@gemstone.com>
CC: ots-rtf@omg.org
Subject: Re: Issue 1837
References: <m11vrVP-0003ifC@kiwi.gemstone.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-UIDL: UhB!!&4Y!!#LCe9b?2!!

Blake Biesecker wrote:
> 
> This issue has already been resolved. The AB is responsible for
> rolling
> in changes made to the OTS specificaton by other specifications.
> 
> So, the resolution to this issue is that it an OTS RTF is not
> able to make this kind of change.
> 
> As a side note, the document ptc/99-10-07 has been created in
> anticipation
> of the Component, Messaging and PSS specifications becoming
> finalized
> early next year.
> 
> I don't believe that an issue that asks to do something that is
> inappropriate for an RTF needs to be voted on, so I will request
> that this issue be marked resolved with a short note about OMG
> procedure.

In the Core and C++ RTFs, we simply put such issues up for vote with a
resolution to close with no change.  This approach is guaranteed to
follow all of the proper procedures. :-)

-- 
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
jon@floorboard.com
jon@biggar.org