Issue 2518: Incorrect search order for ORB implementation class name (java-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Summary: The first bullet of the search order for an ORB implementation class name in section 25.21.7 is: . check in Applet parameter or application string array, if any This seems wrong Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: March 8, 1999: received issue February 27, 2001: closed issue Discussion: Delete the words "or application string array, if any" from the first bullet in Section 21.9 (note that section numbering has changed since this issue was filed). End of Annotations:===== Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 12:32:20 +0000 From: Simon Nash Organization: IBM X-Accept-Language: en To: issues@omg.org CC: java-rtf@omg.org Subject: Standard properties should include initial host and port The standard properties listed in section 25.21.7.1 allow the ORB class and ORB singleton class to be set. There should also be standard properties to allow the initial host and port for the naming service to be set. Proposed resolution: Add the following standard properties to section 25.21.7.1: org.omg.CORBA.ORBInitialHost initial host name for naming service org.omg.CORBA.ORBInitialPort initial port number for naming service Add the following sentence to the end of section 25.21.7: This search order is used for all the OMG standard properties defined in section 25.21.7.1. Simon -- Simon C Nash, Technology Architect, IBM Java Technology Centre Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999 Hursley, England Internet: nash@hursley.ibm.com Lotus Notes: Simon Nash@ibmgb Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:35:06 -0700 From: "Vijaykumar Natarajan" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: java-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 2518: Incorrect search order for ORB implementation class name Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------CCBC2115C2B79BAB606CFCB9" X-UIDL: Sj7!!^5W!!$3i!!I-6e9 Simon, My apologies, but I don't recall this discussion, so could you please recap. Why is the first bullet wrong? and how does the proposal fix this? Thanks, Vijay Issue 2518: Incorrect search order for ORB implementation class name (java-rtf) The first bullet of the search order for an ORB implementation class name in section 25.21.7 is: . check in Applet parameter or application string array, if any This seems wrong Proposal: Add the following sentence to the end of section 25.21.7: This search order is used for all the OMG standard properties defined in section 25.21.7.1. [] vijayn2.vcf Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:59:14 +0100 From: Simon Nash Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vijaykumar Natarajan CC: java-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue 2518: Incorrect search order for ORB implementation class name References: <3947D05A.DA1A6571@inprise.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: <]pd9%~~e9)Wj!!_bX!! Vijay, This issue has become garbled on the issues database. I checked back in the archive mail for the issues list and there are two separate issues that have been incorrectly combined into one. The first issue is: > Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 12:30:43 +0000 > From: Simon Nash > Organization: IBM > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) > X-Accept-Language: en > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: issues@omg.org > CC: java-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Incorrect search order for ORB implementation class name > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > The first bullet of the search order for an ORB implementation class > name in section 25.21.7 is: > . check in Applet parameter or application string array, if any > > This seems wrong. The spec does not define a standard way to > provide > an ORB implementation class name in the application string array. > The properties parameter that is also passed to ORB.init does allow > the ORB implementation class to be set, so it seems redundant to > also > allow it to be set using the application array. > > Either the spec should state how the implementation class name is > passed in the application string array, or the first bullet should > be changed to: > . check in Applet parameter, if any The second issue is: > Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 12:32:20 +0000 > From: Simon Nash > Organization: IBM > X-Accept-Language: en > To: issues@omg.org > CC: java-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Standard properties should include initial host and port > > The standard properties listed in section 25.21.7.1 allow the ORB > class and ORB singleton class to be set. There should also be > standard properties to allow the initial host and port for the > naming > service to be set. > > Proposed resolution: > > Add the following standard properties to section 25.21.7.1: > > org.omg.CORBA.ORBInitialHost initial host name for naming > service > org.omg.CORBA.ORBInitialPort initial port number for naming > service > > Add the following sentence to the end of section 25.21.7: > > This search order is used for all the OMG standard properties > defined > in section 25.21.7.1. I hope this clarifies the situation. Simon Vijaykumar Natarajan wrote: > > Simon, > > My apologies, but I don't recall this discussion, so could you please recap. Why > is the first bullet wrong? and how does the proposal fix this? > > Thanks, > Vijay > > Issue 2518: Incorrect search order for ORB implementation class name (java-rtf) > > The first bullet of the search order for an ORB implementation > class name in section 25.21.7 is: . check in Applet parameter or application > string array, if any This seems wrong > > Proposal: > > Add the following sentence to the end of section 25.21.7: > > This search order is used for all the OMG standard properties defined > in section 25.21.7.1. -- Simon C Nash, Technology Architect, IBM Java Technology Centre Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999 Hursley, England Internet: nash@hursley.ibm.com Lotus Notes: Simon Nash@ibmgb Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:32:09 -0400 From: Mary Leland Organization: HP EIAL X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Simon Nash Cc: Vijaykumar Natarajan , java-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue 2518: Incorrect search order for ORB implementation class name References: <3947D05A.DA1A6571@inprise.com> <39536D32.C2351582@hursley.ibm.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: 6I(!!:hQ!!hX Either the spec should state how the implementation class name is > passed in the application string array, or the first bullet should > be changed to: > . check in Applet parameter, if any Do you want to propose a specific one of the alternatives? If it's the first, how should the implementation class name be passed in the application string array? Thanks, -- Mary Simon Nash wrote: > > Vijay, > This issue has become garbled on the issues database. I checked back in > the archive mail for the issues list and there are two separate issues that > have been incorrectly combined into one. The first issue is: > > > Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 12:30:43 +0000 > > From: Simon Nash > > Organization: IBM > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) > > X-Accept-Language: en > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > To: issues@omg.org > > CC: java-rtf@omg.org > > Subject: Incorrect search order for ORB implementation class name > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > The first bullet of the search order for an ORB implementation class > > name in section 25.21.7 is: > > . check in Applet parameter or application string array, if any > > > > This seems wrong. The spec does not define a standard way to provide > > an ORB implementation class name in the application string array. > > The properties parameter that is also passed to ORB.init does allow > > the ORB implementation class to be set, so it seems redundant to also > > allow it to be set using the application array. > > > > Either the spec should state how the implementation class name is > > passed in the application string array, or the first bullet should > > be changed to: > > . check in Applet parameter, if any > > The second issue is: > > > Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 12:32:20 +0000 > > From: Simon Nash > > Organization: IBM > > X-Accept-Language: en > > To: issues@omg.org > > CC: java-rtf@omg.org > > Subject: Standard properties should include initial host and port > > > > The standard properties listed in section 25.21.7.1 allow the ORB > > class and ORB singleton class to be set. There should also be > > standard properties to allow the initial host and port for the naming > > service to be set. > > > > Proposed resolution: > > > > Add the following standard properties to section 25.21.7.1: > > > > org.omg.CORBA.ORBInitialHost initial host name for naming service > > org.omg.CORBA.ORBInitialPort initial port number for naming > > service > > > > Add the following sentence to the end of section 25.21.7: > > > > This search order is used for all the OMG standard properties defined > > in section 25.21.7.1. > > I hope this clarifies the situation. > > Simon > > Vijaykumar Natarajan wrote: > > > > Simon, > > > > My apologies, but I don't recall this discussion, so could you please recap. Why > > is the first bullet wrong? and how does the proposal fix this? > > > > Thanks, > > Vijay > > > > Issue 2518: Incorrect search order for ORB implementation class name (java-rtf) > > > > The first bullet of the search order for an ORB implementation > > class name in section 25.21.7 is: . check in Applet parameter or application > > string array, if any This seems wrong > > > > Proposal: > > > > Add the following sentence to the end of section 25.21.7: > > > > This search order is used for all the OMG standard properties defined > > in section 25.21.7.1. > > -- > Simon C Nash, Technology Architect, IBM Java Technology Centre > Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999 Hursley, England > Internet: nash@hursley.ibm.com Lotus Notes: Simon Nash@ibmgb Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:45:39 -0700 From: "Vijaykumar Natarajan" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Simon Nash CC: Vijaykumar Natarajan , java-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue 2518: Incorrect search order for ORB implementation class name References: <3947D05A.DA1A6571@inprise.com> <39536D32.C2351582@hursley.ibm.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------7BD1D3AB7AAD068695A3A624" X-UIDL: k5Oe9~dR!!@de!!bB[!! Hi Simon, Thanks for the clarification. That was much clearer ;-) more comments below: Simon Nash wrote: > Vijay, > > The second issue is: > > > Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 12:32:20 +0000 > > From: Simon Nash > > Organization: IBM > > X-Accept-Language: en > > To: issues@omg.org > > CC: java-rtf@omg.org > > Subject: Standard properties should include initial host and port > > > > The standard properties listed in section 25.21.7.1 allow the ORB > > class and ORB singleton class to be set. There should also be > > standard properties to allow the initial host and port for the >naming > > service to be set. > > > > Proposed resolution: > > > > Add the following standard properties to section 25.21.7.1: > > > > org.omg.CORBA.ORBInitialHost initial host name for naming >service > > org.omg.CORBA.ORBInitialPort initial port number for naming > > service > > > > Add the following sentence to the end of section 25.21.7: > > > > This search order is used for all the OMG standard properties >defined > > in section 25.21.7.1. > This is subsumed by the ORBinitref option in the new INS specification. I would not add another way of doing this. I suggest we close this no change. Vijay [] vijayn1.vcf Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:06:24 +0100 From: Simon Nash Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mary Leland CC: Java RTF , Juergen Boldt Subject: Re: IDL to Java RTF Vote 2 References: <39E371AC.42294654@fpk.hp.com> <39E372EE.1BC93664@fpk.hp.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: ,82!!AZ'!!Lcn!!+72!! Mary, Your proposed wording for issue 2518 changes the current words: . check in Applet parameter or application string array, if any to the new words: . check in Applet parameter I believe this should say: . check in Applet parameter, if any since the Applet parameter is not always passed. Will you accept this as an editorial change or a friendly amendment? Simon Mary Leland wrote: > > My mailer seems to have cut off the end of > the html file :-(. Another attempt is > attached. > > Sorry, > -- Mary > > Mary Leland wrote: > > > > RTF Members: Please see the attached html file for the > > issues to be voted on and their proposed resolutions. > > Votes are due by 8 am US EDT on October 25, 2000. > > > > Juergen: Please put the attached html file in the > > http://cgi.omg.org/pub/javartf > > directory. > > > > Thanks, > > -- Mary > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > IDL to Java 2000 RTF Vote 2 > > Deadline for Votes: > 8 am, US Eastern Daylight Time, October 25, 2000 > > Summary of Issues in this Vote > > Issue 2518: Incorrect search order for ORB implementation class name > Issue 2519: Need SerializableHolder class > Issue 2531: Serializable objects in Anys need reference semantics > Issue 3707: Need clarification on custructor(s) for stream-based > Issue 3750: SystemExceptionHelper missing > Issue 3818: Operations signatures include throws clauses on system exceptions. > Issue 3912: How is an ORB to determine whether or not it is in an applet context? > Issue 3913: Vendor-specific ORB_init methods > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Issue 2518: Incorrect search order for ORB implementation class name > > Click here for this issue's archive. > Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Simon C. Nash, nash@hursley.ibm.com) > Summary: > > The first bullet of the search order for an ORB implementation class > name in section 25.21.7 is: > . check in Applet parameter or application string array, if any > > This seems wrong. The spec does not define a standard way to provide > an ORB implementation class name in the application string array. > The properties parameter that is also passed to ORB.init does allow > the ORB implementation class to be set, so it seems redundant to also > allow it to be set using the application array. > > Either the spec should state how the implementation class name is > passed in the application string array, or the first bullet should > be changed to: > . check in Applet parameter, if any > > Actions taken: > March 8, 1999: received issue > January 19, 2000: deferred > > Proposed Resolution: > > Delete the words > "or application string array, if any" > from the first bullet in Section 21.9 (note that section > numbering has changed since this issue was filed). > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Simon C Nash, Technology Architect, IBM Java Technology Centre Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999 Hursley, England Internet: nash@hursley.ibm.com Lotus Notes: Simon Nash@ibmgb Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:01:38 -0400 From: Mary Leland X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Simon Nash Cc: Java RTF , Juergen Boldt Subject: Re: IDL to Java RTF Vote 2 References: <39E371AC.42294654@fpk.hp.com> <39E372EE.1BC93664@fpk.hp.com> <39E3A0F0.D7C5D754@hursley.ibm.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: '+kd9,Hhd97$4e91R/!! Simon, Accepted as a friendly amendment. Thanks. -- Mary Simon Nash wrote: > > Mary, > Your proposed wording for issue 2518 changes the current words: > . check in Applet parameter or application string array, if any > to the new words: > . check in Applet parameter > > I believe this should say: > . check in Applet parameter, if any > since the Applet parameter is not always passed. Will you accept this as > an editorial change or a friendly amendment? > > Simon > > Mary Leland wrote: > > > > My mailer seems to have cut off the end of > > the html file :-(. Another attempt is > > attached. > > > > Sorry, > > -- Mary > > > > Mary Leland wrote: > > > > > > RTF Members: Please see the attached html file for the > > > issues to be voted on and their proposed resolutions. > > > Votes are due by 8 am US EDT on October 25, 2000. > > > > > > Juergen: Please put the attached html file in the > > > http://cgi.omg.org/pub/javartf > > > directory. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -- Mary > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > IDL to Java 2000 RTF Vote 2 > > > > Deadline for Votes: > > 8 am, US Eastern Daylight Time, October 25, 2000 > > > > Summary of Issues in this Vote > > > > Issue 2518: Incorrect search order for ORB implementation class name > > Issue 2519: Need SerializableHolder class > > Issue 2531: Serializable objects in Anys need reference semantics > > Issue 3707: Need clarification on custructor(s) for stream-based > > Issue 3750: SystemExceptionHelper missing > > Issue 3818: Operations signatures include throws clauses on system exceptions. > > Issue 3912: How is an ORB to determine whether or not it is in an applet context? > > Issue 3913: Vendor-specific ORB_init methods > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Issue 2518: Incorrect search order for ORB implementation class name > > > > Click here for this issue's archive. > > Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Simon C. Nash, nash@hursley.ibm.com) > > Summary: > > > > The first bullet of the search order for an ORB implementation class > > name in section 25.21.7 is: > > . check in Applet parameter or application string array, if any > > > > This seems wrong. The spec does not define a standard way to provide > > an ORB implementation class name in the application string array. > > The properties parameter that is also passed to ORB.init does allow > > the ORB implementation class to be set, so it seems redundant to also > > allow it to be set using the application array. > > > > Either the spec should state how the implementation class name is > > passed in the application string array, or the first bullet should > > be changed to: > > . check in Applet parameter, if any > > > > Actions taken: > > March 8, 1999: received issue > > January 19, 2000: deferred > > > > Proposed Resolution: > > > > Delete the words > > "or application string array, if any" > > from the first bullet in Section 21.9 (note that section > > numbering has changed since this issue was filed). > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > Simon C Nash, Technology Architect, IBM Java Technology Centre > Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999 Hursley, England > Internet: nash@hursley.ibm.com Lotus Notes: Simon Nash@ibmgb