Issue 2029:  _primary_interface (cxx_revision)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Summary:  From the C++ spec (CORBA2_3-c++.pdf) pg: 20-132
 
 For static skeletons, the default implementation of the _get_interface
 and _is_a functions provided by ServantBase use the interface associated
 with the skeleton class to determine their respective return values. For
 dynamic skeletons (see Section 20.37), these functions use the
 _primary_interface function to determine their return values.
 
 Does this mean that a dynamic implementation needs the IFR?
 If not, then how can _is_a be implemented for sub-types?
 
 I note that the java mapping includes the method _all_interfaces in Servant
 for precisely this reason...
 

Resolution: Already resolved.
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
October 2, 1998: received issue
June 13, 2000: closed issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
Return-Path: <matthew@wiley242h106.roadrunner.nf.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 13:21:01 -0230
From: Matthew Newhook <matthew@ooc.com>
To: cxx_revision@omg.org
Subject: _primary_interface

Hi,
 From the C++ spec (CORBA2_3-c++.pdf) pg: 20-132

For static skeletons, the default implementation of the _get_interface
and _is_a functions provided by ServantBase use the interface
associated
with the skeleton class to determine their respective return
values. For
dynamic skeletons (see Section 20.37), these functions use the
_primary_interface function to determine their return values.

Does this mean that a dynamic implementation needs the IFR?
If not, then how can _is_a be implemented for sub-types?

I note that the java mapping includes the method _all_interfaces in
Servant
for precisely this reason...

Matthew
-- 
Matthew Newhook				E-Mail: mailto:matthew@ooc.com
Software Designer			WWW:    http://www.ooc.com
Object Oriented Concepts, Inc.		Phone:  (978) 439 9285 x 246

Return-Path: <jon@floorboard.com>
Sender: jon@floorboard.com
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 09:51:40 -0700
From: Jonathan Biggar <jon@floorboard.com>
To: Matthew Newhook <matthew@ooc.com>
CC: cxx_revision@omg.org
Subject: Re: _primary_interface
References: <19981002132101.A27987@wiley242h106.roadrunner.nf.net>

Matthew Newhook wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  From the C++ spec (CORBA2_3-c++.pdf) pg: 20-132
> 
> For static skeletons, the default implementation of the
> _get_interface
> and _is_a functions provided by ServantBase use the interface
> associated
> with the skeleton class to determine their respective return
> values. For
> dynamic skeletons (see Section 20.37), these functions use the
> _primary_interface function to determine their return values.
> 
> Does this mean that a dynamic implementation needs the IFR?

Yes, if you do not override the definition of _is_a in your dynamic
skeleton class.  We made the _is_a function virtual so the programmer
can override it and provide a definition that does not need to use the
IFR.

> If not, then how can _is_a be implemented for sub-types?
> 
> I note that the java mapping includes the method _all_interfaces in
> Servant
> for precisely this reason...

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