Issue 2180:  Revise `container" operations on RefBaseObject (mof-rtf)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Revision
Severity:  Minor
Summary: Summary: We now need to have two operations on RefBaseObject to return 
 the `composite" container and the `static" scope (i.e. the extent). The 
 operation signatures should be similar, with distinctive names.
 
 

Resolution: closed issue
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
November 6, 1998: received issue
May 8, 2000: closed issue
Discussion: 
Discussion : Burlingame - Please clarify why we need this.
Implementation: Already resolved by a combination of “Issue 1305: Illegal IDL re-definitions
(mof-rtf)” and “Issue 1770: MofAttribute values do not
have aggregation==composite semantics (mof-rtf)”. Done [KR].
End of Annotations:=====
Return-Path: <crawley@dstc.edu.au>
To: mof-rtf@omg.org, issues@omg.org
Errors-to: request@omg.org
Subject: Revise `container' operations on RefBaseObject
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 15:28:29 +1000
From: Stephen Crawley <crawley@dstc.edu.au>


["new issue 11" from Seattle RTF doc.]

Source: DSTC (Dr. Stephen Crawley, crawley@dstc.edu.au)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary: We now need to have two operations on RefBaseObject to return

the `composite' container and the `static' scope (i.e. the
extent). The 
operation signatures should be similar, with distinctive names.

Additional Text:

The first operation is needed to support "magic free" checking of the
structural constraints on contained objects.  In particular, to make
sure that an object is not contained by multiple objects.  (Up until
recently, we thought that the 'contained' object could only be the
component type in one composite association.  Now it is clear that
this 
is not true, and that Attributes can also denote composites.)

The second operation is needed because the specific
'enclosing_package_ref'
link on Packages, Associations and Class proxies must be dropped.