Issue 1850: Add get_timeout to Current (ots-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Summary: how about adding get_timeout to Current? Resolution: The get_timeout method will be added to Current. Revised Text: Add the following operation to the IDL for Current in section 10.3.1: interface Current : CORBA:Current { . . . unsigned long get_timeout (); . . . }; and the following text to section 10.3.1: get_timeout This operation returns the state variable associated with the target object that affects the time-out period associated with top-level transactions created by invocations of the begin operation, or 0 if no application specific time-out has been established. Actions taken: August 24, 1998: received issue January 16, 2001: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Return-Path: Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 12:05:57 +0100 From: Mark Little Organization: Newcastle University To: issues@omg.org, ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: further issues for OTS RTF Here are some more issues which I've come across while implementing the OTS. In no particular order: (iii) how about adding get_timeout to Current? From: "Mark Little" To: "Blake Biesecker" Cc: "OTS Revision Task Force" References: <05d901bf4c62$3a443dc0$6e96f080@ncl.ac.uk> <20000208141544.A341@gemstone.com> Subject: Re: open issues Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:25:22 -0000 Organization: Newcastle University MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: 41Pd9>NI!!J>Qe9k\>!! Here's the proposed text for issue 1850: I proposed adding the get_timeout method to Current: interface Current : CORBA:Current { . . . unsigned long get_timeout (); . . . }; and the following text: get_timeout This operation returns the state variable associated with the target object that affects the time-out period associated with top-level transactions created by invocations of the begin operation, or 0 if no application specific time-out has been established. Comments? Mark. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SENDER : Dr. Mark Little, Arjuna Project, Distributed Systems Research. PHONE : +44 191 222 8066, FAX : +44 191 222 8232 POST : Department of Computing Science, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU EMAIL : M.C.Little@newcastle.ac.uk From: "Mark Little" To: , "Blake Biesecker" Cc: References: <20000525132359.F3636@gemstone.com> <393D2A69.AAC5C907@fpk.hp.com> Subject: Re: OTS RTF Vote 2 is on the omg website Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:13:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: +CJ!!BMb!!MZ6e9~;P!! ----- Original Message ----- > One minor comment on the resolution for Issue 1850.... Just for > completeness's sake shouldn't we state that the unsigned long value > returned by the get_timeout operation represents the timeout period > in > number of seconds (at least that is what I gather it is from the > resolution of issue 1851)? Agreed. Mark. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SENDER : Dr. Mark Little, Arjuna Project, Distributed Systems Research. PHONE : +44 191 222 8066, FAX : +44 191 222 8232 POST : Department of Computing Science, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU EMAIL : M.C.Little@newcastle.ac.uk Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 06:41:55 -0700 From: Blake Biesecker To: Mark Little Cc: jis@fpk.hp.com, ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: OTS RTF Vote 2 is on the omg website Message-ID: <20000607064154.B17952@gemstone.com> References: <20000525132359.F3636@gemstone.com> <393D2A69.AAC5C907@fpk.hp.com> <01f501bfd058$542e4080$6e96f080@ncl.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre4i In-Reply-To: <01f501bfd058$542e4080$6e96f080@ncl.ac.uk>; from M.C.Little@ncl.ac.uk on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 09:13:54AM +0100 X-Disclaimer: I only speak for myself, unless I expressly indicate otherwise. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: 9jjd9!R,!!"+md90A*e9 On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 09:13:54AM +0100, Mark Little wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > One minor comment on the resolution for Issue 1850.... Just for > > completeness's sake shouldn't we state that the unsigned long value > > returned by the get_timeout operation represents the timeout period in > > number of seconds (at least that is what I gather it is from the > > resolution of issue 1851)? > > Agreed. > > Mark. > I agree with this as well. Procedurally, do people know if this kind of change can be considered an editing change or do we need to vote on it? Blake > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > SENDER : Dr. Mark Little, Arjuna Project, Distributed Systems Research. > PHONE : +44 191 222 8066, FAX : +44 191 222 8232 > POST : Department of Computing Science, University of Newcastle upon > Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU > EMAIL : M.C.Little@newcastle.ac.uk > > > Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 07:05:05 -0700 From: Blake Biesecker To: ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: Editorial change to issue 1850 Message-ID: <20000608070505.A19037@gemstone.com> References: <20000525132359.F3636@gemstone.com> <393D2A69.AAC5C907@fpk.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre4i In-Reply-To: <393D2A69.AAC5C907@fpk.hp.com>; from jis@fpk.hp.com on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 12:44:25PM -0400 X-Disclaimer: I only speak for myself, unless I expressly indicate otherwise. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: `8d!!1/kd9T]Pe9'(kd9 On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 12:44:25PM -0400, Jishnu Mukerji wrote: [snip] > > One minor comment on the resolution for Issue 1850.... Just for > completeness's sake shouldn't we state that the unsigned long value > returned by the get_timeout operation represents the timeout period in > number of seconds (at least that is what I gather it is from the > resolution of issue 1851)? > > Regards, > > Jishnu. This is to officially announce that I am planning on making the clarification Jishnu describes above as an editorial change. If anyone disagrees with this change, please speak up. If there is even one objection, I will open a new issue and we can vote on the change. The deadline for objecting will be Thursday, June 15th at 6:00 PM. Objections received after that will be dealt with by opening a new issue to reverse the editorial change. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this change. Blake Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 09:27:42 -0700 From: Ram Jeyaraman Organization: JavaSoft, Sun Microsystems Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Blake Biesecker CC: ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Editorial change to issue 1850 References: <20000525132359.F3636@gemstone.com> <393D2A69.AAC5C907@fpk.hp.com> <20000608070505.A19037@gemstone.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: 9bS!!NmCe9_@D!!@4i!! also are we planning to include this change for issue 3343 ? A minor correction to issue 3343 which adds the following text to the Synchronization interface definition. Since the after_completion method need not be called with a transaction context, ALLOWS_SHARED would be an ideal choice instead of REQUIRES_SHARED. ----------------------------- PROPOSED TEXT --------- // TransactionalObject has been deprecated. See 10.3.10. // Use a TransactionPolicyValue of "ALLOWS_SHARED" to // indicate transactionality. interface Synchronization : TransactionalObject { void before_completion(); void after_completion(in Status status); }; -----------------------------> END thanks Ram Blake Biesecker wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 12:44:25PM -0400, Jishnu Mukerji wrote: > [snip] > > > > One minor comment on the resolution for Issue 1850.... Just for > > completeness's sake shouldn't we state that the unsigned long value > > returned by the get_timeout operation represents the timeout period in > > number of seconds (at least that is what I gather it is from the > > resolution of issue 1851)? > > > > Regards, > > > > Jishnu. > > This is to officially announce that I am planning on making the > clarification Jishnu describes above as an editorial change. If > anyone disagrees with this change, please speak up. If there is > even one objection, I will open a new issue and we can vote on the > change. The deadline for objecting will be Thursday, June 15th at > 6:00 PM. Objections received after that will be dealt with by > opening a new issue to reverse the editorial change. > > Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding > this change. > > Blake