Issue 2188: MOF Model IDL versus OMG Style guidelines (mof-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Revision Severity: Minor Summary: Summary: It has been pointed out to me that the MOF IDL doesn"t conform with the OMG style guidelines and conventions in two respects. First, there is no "#pragma prefix "org.omg"" in any of the core IDL files. Second, there is a convention that the outermost module names for OMG specs have a standard prefix depending on its "positioning" in the OMA; e.g. Cos, Cf or whatever. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: November 6, 1998: received issue July 23, 1999: deferred to MOF 2.0 Discussion: Discussion The #pragma prefix for the Mof Model should be set using the mechanism defined as a re-sult of the previous issue. For Reflective, it should simply be edited into the IDL. Dan Franz has confirm that the module name prefix for MOF should be Cf. He has also stated that there is no requirement on the MOF RTF to rename the MOF modules, since the MOF specification predates the style guide. Changing the module names could be done by changing the top-level Package names; e.g. Model - CfModel, Reflective - CfReflective. If we are going to do this, I propose that we think about choosing some package names that are more appropriate. They need to be clearly MOF associated, and also they need to more accurately indicate their purpose. For example, Model - CfMetaModels and Reflective - CfMetaObjects. Clearly, changing the core MOF Package names at this stage will have significant impact on existing MOF code bases. This must be taken into account. On the other hand, fixing the prefixes will probably cause minimal problems at this stage. Status: no decisions , Deferred to MOF 2.0 Implementation: Nothing to do. Done [KR] The #pragma prefix for the Mof Model should be set using the mechanism defined as a re-sult of the previous issue. For Reflective, it should simply be edited into the IDL. Dan Franz has confirm that the module name prefix for MOF should be Cf. He has also stated that there is no requirement on the MOF RTF to rename the MOF modules, since the MOF specification predates the style guide. Changing the module names could be done by changing the top-level Package names; e.g. Model - CfModel, Reflective - CfReflective. If we are going to do this, I propose that we think about choosing some package names that are more appropriate. They need to be clearly MOF associated, and also they need to more accurately indicate their purpose. For example, Model - CfMetaModels and Reflective - CfMetaObjects. Clearly, changing the core MOF Package names at this stage will have significant impact on existing MOF code bases. This must be taken into account. On the other hand, fixing the prefixes will probably cause minimal problems at this stage. End of Annotations:===== Return-Path: To: mof-rtf@omg.org, issues@omg.org, "Daniel R. Frantz" Subject: MOF Model IDL versus OMG Style guidelines. Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 16:56:34 +1000 From: Stephen Crawley Source: DSTC (Dr. Stephen Crawley, crawley@dstc.edu.au) Nature: Revision Severity: Minor Summary: It has been pointed out to me that the MOF IDL doesn't conform with the OMG style guidelines and conventions in two respects. First, there is no '#pragma prefix "org.omg"' in any of the core IDL files. Second, there is a convention that the outermost module names for OMG specs have a standard prefix depending on its "positioning" in the OMA; e.g. Cos, Cf or whatever. Additional text: The #pragma prefix for the Mof Model should be set using the mechanism defined as a result of the previous issue. For Reflective, it should simply be edited into the IDL. Dan: could you confirm that the module name prefix for MOF should be Cf? Changing the module names could be done by changing the top-level Package names; e.g. Model -> CfModel, Reflective -> CfReflective. If we are going to do this, I propose that we think about choosing some package names that are more appropriate. They need to be clearly MOF associated, and also they need to more accurately indicate their purpose. For example, Model -> CfMetaModels and Reflective -> CfMetaObjects. Return-Path: To: "Daniel R. Frantz" cc: "'Stephen Crawley'" , mof-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: MOF Model IDL versus OMG Style guidelines. Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 01:02:43 +1000 From: Stephen Crawley Dan, Thank you for your advice! > Since MOF ante-dates the style guide and people are already using it, > there is no requirement that the module names change. That is very good to hear. It means that the MOF RTF is justified in weigh up the pros and cons of changing the MOF Package / IDL module names ... including the pragmatic ones! > The RTF has the power to change the names if it wishes. Clearly, some > consideration must be taken for the number of users of the technology > and the affect of the name change. Every reference in programs would > have to change, not just the IDL itself. Yes I know. The prospect of such a change to our (DSTC's) MOF code base is somewhat daunting, and I imagine this is also true for our co-submitters. > If the MOF is seen to be still > so new that the number of users is very small, this might be > reasonable, It is my belief that all users are known to the co-submitters, but ... > but be careful, because there may well be users who are not represented > on the RTF. Good point. -- Steve