Issue 2306:   Valuetypes as operation arguments (cxx_revision)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Summary: The C++ mapping document (98-09-03, p. 108) states that "... the callee
 shall receive a copy of each valuetype argument passed to it even if the
 caller and callee are collocated in the same process."
 
 In the collocated case, should the ORB invoke _copy_value() to produce
 the copy?
 
 Since the user could implement _copy_value() to return a nil value, it
 seems unlikely that the ORB could rely on this mechanism.  However, a
 properly implemented _copy_value() would likely provide a significant
 speed improvement over marshalling and unmarshalling.
 
 

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
January 18, 1999: received issue
Discussion: 
deferred in June 2011 to the next RTF
End of Annotations:=====
X-Sender: mark@192.168.1.1
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:51:06 -0800
To: cxx_revision@omg.org, obv-rtf@omg.org
From: Mark Spruiell <mes@ooc.com>
Subject: Valuetypes as operation arguments

The C++ mapping document (98-09-03, p. 108) states that "... the
callee
shall receive a copy of each valuetype argument passed to it even if
the
caller and callee are collocated in the same process."

In the collocated case, should the ORB invoke _copy_value() to produce
the copy?

Since the user could implement _copy_value() to return a nil value, it
seems unlikely that the ORB could rely on this mechanism.  However, a
properly implemented _copy_value() would likely provide a significant
speed improvement over marshalling and unmarshalling.

On the other hand, the stated goal is location transparency.  If
_copy_value() is invoked for the collocated case and not for the
remote
case, is it still transparent?

Thanks,

    Mark
--
Mark E. Spruiell
Object-Oriented Concepts, Inc.
mes@ooc.com  *  http://www.ooc.com  *  1-978-439-9285 x 247