Issue 2494: LocateRequest and LocateReply messages (interop) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Summary: GIOP 1.1 only allows Request and Reply headers to be fragmented. But GIOP 1.2 increases the size of LocateRequest messages, and large LocateReply messages are also likely. I see no reason why GIOP 1.2 should not allow LocateRequest and LocateReply messages to be fragmented. If noone objects, I"d like to see the following put to a vote in the next ORB 2.4 Interoperability RTF for inclusion in CORBA 2.3: Resolution: see above Revised Text: Given the output of this Interop 2.4 RTF will be published in Corba 2.3: the following changes are proposed: In CORBA 2.3a, section 15.4.8, page 15-40, 3rd paragraph, change the first sentence from: "A Request or Reply message can be broken into multiple fragments." to to two sentences: "In GIOP 1.1, a Request or Reply message can be broken into multiple fragments. In GIOP 1.2, a Request, Reply, LocateRequest, or LocateReply message can be broken into multiple fragments." On the same page, in the second paragraph after the note, change: "... other than the final fragment of a Request or Reply message are required ..." to: "... other than the final fragment of a fragmented message are required ..." Note that this is the middle part of the same sentence whose begining is modified in the resolution being voted on for issue 1982. On page 15-28, at the end of the first paragraph of the "flags" bullet, add the following sentence: "The byte order for fragment messages must match the byte order of the initial message that the fragment extends." Actions taken: February 26, 1999: received issue September 16, 1999: closed issue Discussion: : The following text changes for fragmentation are proposed, including some clarifications for byte order for fragmented messages being all the same. End of Annotations:===== Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:01:16 -0500 From: Bob Kukura Organization: IONA Technologies X-Accept-Language: en To: terutt@lucent.com, interop@omg.org, issues@omg.org CC: jeffm@inprise.com, jis@fpk.hp.com, jon@biggar.org, drs@nortelnetworks.com, stephen@aptest.ie, randyfox@austin.ibm.com, janssen@parc.xerox.com, michi@triodia.com, bill@novell.com, bill.beckwith@ois.com, ed.cobb@beasys.com, Ken Cavanaugh , cryan@iona.com Subject: new Interop issue to resolve by March 8 if possible References: <36CDCCC8.A56C7C0B@lucent.com> <36CDDE9C.660B21B0@lucent.com> <36CDE13C.C5FA5660@lucent.com> <36D5B46F.23437F78@lucent.com> > Tom Rutt wrote: > [...] > However, we can continue to vote on the remaining issues. Regarding > issue 1968, Andrew Watson has stated that the output > of this report, on March 8, will be able to be put into CORBA 2.3, > due > to the delay waiting for the Java Mapping RTF report. GIOP 1.1 only allows Request and Reply headers to be fragmented. But GIOP 1.2 increases the size of LocateRequest messages, and large LocateReply messages are also likely. I see no reason why GIOP 1.2 should not allow LocateRequest and LocateReply messages to be fragmented. If noone objects, I'd like to see the following put to a vote in the next ORB 2.4 Interoperability RTF for inclusion in CORBA 2.3: Proposed Revised Text: In CORBA 2.3a, section 15.4.8, page 15-40, 3rd paragraph, change the first sentence from: "A Request or Reply message can be broken into multiple fragments." to to two sentences: "In GIOP 1.1, a Request or Reply message can be broken into multiple fragments. In GIOP 1.2 [and above?], a Request, Reply, LocateRequest, or LocateReply message can be broken into multiple fragments." On the same page, in the second paragraph after the note, change: "... other than the final fragment of a Request or Reply message are required ..." to: "... other than the final fragment of a fragmented message are required ..." Note that this is the middle part of the same sentence whose begining is modified in the resolution being voted on for issue 1982. Thanks, -Bob Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 11:47:03 -0500 From: Bob Kukura Organization: IONA Technologies X-Accept-Language: en To: interop@omg.org Subject: vote on my proposal for 2494, and on a clarification? Last week, I sent a proposal to revise GIOP 1.2 to allow LocateRequest and LocateReply messages to be fragmented in the same way as Request and Reply messages. They already have request IDs, and therefore this is a simple sytactic rather than a semantic change to GIOP. It also would reduce the complexity of implementing GIOP 1.2, since LocateRequest and LocateReply messages that are longer than the chosen buffer length would no longer need to be special cased. Anyway, neither Tom Rutt nor I have seen any discussion related to this issue. I'd like to see it included in this week's RTF vote so that its resolution can be published as part of CORBA 2.3, and so that a new GIOP minor revision is not needed. If anyone either agrees that this change should be made, or strongly opposes making at this time, would you please speak up so that Tom has a basis for deciding whether to include this in the vote. The proposed change is: > Proposed Revised Text: > > In CORBA 2.3a, section 15.4.8, page 15-40, 3rd paragraph, change the > first sentence from: > > "A Request or Reply message can be broken into multiple fragments." > > to to two sentences: > > "In GIOP 1.1, a Request or Reply message can be broken into multiple > fragments. In GIOP 1.2 [and above?], a Request, Reply, > LocateRequest, > or LocateReply message can be broken into multiple fragments." > > > On the same page, in the second paragraph after the note, change: > > "... other than the final fragment of a Request or Reply message are > required ..." > > to: > > "... other than the final fragment of a fragmented message are > required > ..." > > Note that this is the middle part of the same sentence whose > begining is > modified in the resolution being voted on for issue 1982. > > Also, someone here noticed, and I pointed out to Tom, that there doesn't seem to be any explicit requirement in the specification that all fragments of a message must use the same byte order. This is obviously required for a message to be "defragmented". Would anyone object to including this clarification in this week's vote? -Bob Sender: jon@floorboard.com Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 12:55:05 -0800 From: Jonathan Biggar X-Accept-Language: en CC: interop@omg.org Subject: Re: vote on my proposal for 2494, and on a clarification? References: Michi Henning wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Bob Kukura wrote: > > > Anyway, neither Tom Rutt nor I have seen any discussion related to > this > > issue. I'd like to see it included in this week's RTF vote so > that its > > resolution can be published as part of CORBA 2.3, and so that a > new GIOP > > minor revision is not needed. If anyone either agrees that this > change > > should be made, or strongly opposes making at this time, would you > > please speak up so that Tom has a basis for deciding whether to > include > > this in the vote. > > I don't see any problem with the change, so I'm for it. Ditto. -- Jon Biggar Floorboard Software jon@floorboard.com jon@biggar.org