Issue 2347: INS: why NamingService instead of NameService? (issues) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Summary: INS specifies that the default object key for the `root" context of a CosNaming service is "NamingService". However, the keyword passed to CORB::ORB::resolve_initial_references() to locate the CosNaming service is "NameService". This is bound to create confusion, if only among implementors. Suggest changing the object key of the root naming context to "NameService". Resolution: resolve_initial_reference token references to "NamingService" have been changed to "NameService" Revised Text: Actions taken: January 27, 1999: received issue May 4, 2000: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:49:48 PST Sender: Bill Janssen From: Bill Janssen To: issues@omg.org Subject: INS: why NamingService instead of NameService? INS specifies that the default object key for the `root' context of a CosNaming service is "NamingService". However, the keyword passed to CORB::ORB::resolve_initial_references() to locate the CosNaming service is "NameService". This is bound to create confusion, if only among implementors. Suggest changing the object key of the root naming context to "NameService". Bill Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:05:46 +1000 (EST) From: Michi Henning To: Bill Janssen cc: issues@omg.org, inaming@dstc.edu.au Subject: Re: INS: why NamingService instead of NameService? Organization: Triodia Technologies On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Bill Janssen wrote: > INS specifies that the default object key for the `root' context of a > CosNaming service is "NamingService". However, the keyword passed to > CORB::ORB::resolve_initial_references() to locate the CosNaming service > is "NameService". This is bound to create confusion, if only among > implementors. Suggest changing the object key of the root naming > context to "NameService". Fully agree. I'd say that's an editorial error -- it should be "NameService". Cheers, Michi. Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:22:12 -0500 From: Paul H Kyzivat Organization: NobleNet To: Bill Janssen CC: issues@omg.org Subject: Re: INS: why NamingService instead of NameService? References: <0qfcnQkB0KGWA4Knwu@holmes.parc.xerox.com> Bill Janssen wrote: > > INS specifies that the default object key for the `root' context of > a > CosNaming service is "NamingService". However, the keyword passed > to > CORB::ORB::resolve_initial_references() to locate the CosNaming > service > is "NameService". This is bound to create confusion, if only among > implementors. Suggest changing the object key of the root naming > context to "NameService". > > Bill Bill, I agree with you. This seems to be an editorial error, since resolve_initial_references is supposed to take its argument and turn it into the key field of an iioploc url. Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:57:02 +1000 (EST) From: Michi Henning To: Juergen Boldt cc: issues@emerald.omg.org Subject: Re: Lost issues In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20010320104951.00a86ca0@emerald.omg.org> Message-ID: Organization: Object Oriented Concepts - An IONA Company MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: :BJe9a1K!!,[8e9=SL!! On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Juergen Boldt wrote: > Hello all, > > URL http://cgi.omg.org/issues/issues.html > contains links to issues which have not been assigned to R/FTFs > because of > a couple of reasons: > ..to name a few... > a) The RTF/FTF has expired and should be re-chartered > b) The RTF/FTF has expired and will never be re-chartered again > (several > reasons why are possible) > c) I just didn't know what RTF/FTF would be responsible for an issue > submitted.. > d) There appear to be no RTFs for most of the CORBAservices > e) Nobody knew about this issues archive > > With your help some of those issues could be resolved (by assigning > some of > those issues to active RTFs/FTFs or by rechartering some of the > expired > RTFs...) Here are some proposals: Issue 184: Close no change. I don't understand the question Issue 468: Close. The issue is empty. Issue 493: Close no change. It doesn't because the submitters decided that it wouldn't. Issue 498: From what I can recall, this refers to name equivalence in the Naming Service. INS has cleaned this, so close it. Issue 961: Move to http://cgi.omg.org/issues/event-rtf.html Issue 2347: Close. This was fixed by INS. Issue 2972: Move to http::/cgi.omg.org/issues/relationship-rtf.html Issue 3003: Close. Issue 3271: Close no change. Historically, iterators in the various specs are a total mess, and all of them, without exception, get it wrong :-( I'm afraid we have to live with the resulting inconsistencies. Issue 4216: Should probably be reassigned to Core RTF? Issues 284, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 4225: We need a trader RTF for those. The remaining open issues also will require formation of RTFs. Cheers, Michi. -- Michi Henning +61 7 3324 9633 Object Oriented Concepts - An IONA Company +61 4 1118 2700 (mobile) Suite 4, 8 Martha St +61 7 3324 9799 (fax) Camp Hill 4152 michi.henning@iona.com Brisbane, AUSTRALIA http://www.ooc.com.au/staff/michi