Issue 2549: activate_object_with_id and exceptions (orb_revision) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Summary: If I use activate_object_with_id and the object ID is already in the AOM, the operation raises ObjectAlreadyActive. If I use activate_object_with_id and the servant is already in the AOM, and the POA has UNIQUE_ID, the operation raises ServantAlreadyActive. What happens if I have UNIQUE_ID, and I run the following code? poa->activate_object_with_id(my_id, my_servant); poa->activate_object_with_id(my_id, my_servant); // ??? Which exception is raised on the second call, ObjectAlreadyActive or ServantAlreadyActive? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: March 18, 1999: received issue October 30, 2000: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 15:20:55 +1000 (EST) From: Michi Henning Reply-To: Core Revision Task Force To: Core Revision Task Force cc: issues@omg.org Subject: activate_object_with_id and exceptions Organization: Triodia Technologies If I use activate_object_with_id and the object ID is already in the AOM, the operation raises ObjectAlreadyActive. If I use activate_object_with_id and the servant is already in the AOM, and the POA has UNIQUE_ID, the operation raises ServantAlreadyActive. What happens if I have UNIQUE_ID, and I run the following code? poa->activate_object_with_id(my_id, my_servant); poa->activate_object_with_id(my_id, my_servant); // ??? Which exception is raised on the second call, ObjectAlreadyActive or ServantAlreadyActive? As far as I can see, the spec doesn't say. I suspect that this might be important at least for some applications. In general, we have lots of operations on the POA that raise more than one exception, and it is possible for the error conditions for several exceptions to be true simultaneously. I'd like to explore whether it is necessary/desirable to go through and define a precedence order for these exceptions, so it is well-defined which exception is raised if more than one exception could be raised. Thoughts? Would this be valuable, or would we be wasting our time? Cheers, Michi. -- Michi Henning +61 7 3236 1633 Triodia Technologies +61 4 1118 2700 (mobile) PO Box 372 +61 7 3211 0047 (fax) Annerley 4103 michi@triodia.com AUSTRALIA http://www.triodia.com/staff/michi-henning.html Sender: jon@floorboard.com Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:54:37 -0800 From: Jonathan Biggar X-Accept-Language: en To: Core Revision Task Force CC: issues@omg.org Subject: Re: activate_object_with_id and exceptions References: Michi Henning wrote: > > If I use activate_object_with_id and the object ID is already in the > AOM, > the operation raises ObjectAlreadyActive. > > If I use activate_object_with_id and the servant is already in the > AOM, and > the POA has UNIQUE_ID, the operation raises ServantAlreadyActive. > > What happens if I have UNIQUE_ID, and I run the following code? > > poa->activate_object_with_id(my_id, my_servant); > poa->activate_object_with_id(my_id, my_servant); // > ??? > > Which exception is raised on the second call, ObjectAlreadyActive or > ServantAlreadyActive? > > As far as I can see, the spec doesn't say. I suspect that this might > be > important at least for some applications. In general, we have lots > of operations on the POA that raise more than one exception, and it > is > possible for the error conditions for several exceptions to be true > simultaneously. > > I'd like to explore whether it is necessary/desirable to go through > and > define a precedence order for these exceptions, so it is > well-defined > which exception is raised if more than one exception could be > raised. > > Thoughts? Would this be valuable, or would we be wasting our time? I think it's probably a waste of time. Besides, trying to nail stuff down that tightly is probably going to offend someone who doesn't want their implementation to be so constrained. :-) -- Jon Biggar Floorboard Software jon@floorboard.com jon@biggar.org Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 08:23:20 -0500 From: Paul H Kyzivat Organization: NobleNet To: Core Revision Task Force CC: issues@omg.org Subject: Re: activate_object_with_id and exceptions References: Michi Henning wrote: > > If I use activate_object_with_id and the object ID is already in the > AOM, > the operation raises ObjectAlreadyActive. > > If I use activate_object_with_id and the servant is already in the > AOM, and > the POA has UNIQUE_ID, the operation raises ServantAlreadyActive. > > What happens if I have UNIQUE_ID, and I run the following code? > > poa->activate_object_with_id(my_id, my_servant); > poa->activate_object_with_id(my_id, my_servant); // > ??? > > Which exception is raised on the second call, ObjectAlreadyActive or > ServantAlreadyActive? > > As far as I can see, the spec doesn't say. I suspect that this might > be > important at least for some applications. In general, we have lots > of operations on the POA that raise more than one exception, and it > is > possible for the error conditions for several exceptions to be true > simultaneously. > > I'd like to explore whether it is necessary/desirable to go through > and > define a precedence order for these exceptions, so it is > well-defined > which exception is raised if more than one exception could be > raised. > > Thoughts? Would this be valuable, or would we be wasting our time? My feeling is that would not only be wasting our time, but that it would be an unnecessary constraint on implementations. I don't think portability requires absolute determinism for every sequence of calls. From: "Oliver Kellogg" To: Subject: Object references as method parameters or return type Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 13:13:40 +0200 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by emerald.omg.org id HAA08632 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-UIDL: f0232c199948e619d0a92efa4cde2b02 Issue Type: Mapping Change I suggest to generalize the mapping rule proposed in issue 2459. All object or interface reference types used as parameters or the return type of IDL methods shall be mapped to the equivalent classwide Ada type. Further, an IDL function or attribute returning an object or interface reference type shall be mapped to an Ada procedure with an additional last parameter of name "Returns", mode "out", and equivalent Ada classwide type. Here is an example: interface A { Object get_obj (); attribute A the_a; }; shall be mapped to package A is type Ref is new CORBA.Object.Ref with null record; procedure get_obj (Self : in Ref; Returns : out CORBA.Object.Ref'Class); procedure Set_the_a (Self : in Ref; To : in Ref'Class); procedure Get_the_a (Self : in Ref; Returns : out Ref'Class); ... end A; Motivation: The current mapping of object references as parameters or return type of methods is cumbersome: 1) When passing an instance of a derived class to a method, a type conversion is necessary. A more natural mapping would permit parameters from the entire hierarchy rooted at the parameter type without type conversion. 2) The above example method Get_the_a, according to issue 2459, would be mapped as function Get_the_a (Self : in Ref) return Ref'Class; Any usage of the return value of Get_the_A requires a type conversion. Thanks, Oliver M. Kellogg DaimlerChrysler Aerospace e-mail: oliver.kellogg@vs.dasa.de Sender: jis@fpk.hp.com Message-ID: <382373FB.2B21D830@fpk.hp.com> Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 19:19:07 -0500 From: Jishnu Mukerji Organization: Hewlett-Packard EIAL X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; U; HP-UX B.11.00 9000/889) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: orb_revision@omg.org Subject: Issue 2549 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: -(M!!PX=!!1C""!V!^d9 Reading through the archive I get the sense that this issue is begging to be closed no change. What say y'all? Jishnu. Issue 2549: activate_object_with_id and exceptions (orb_revision) http://www.omg.org/issues/issue2549.txt Source: DSTC (Mr. Michi Henning, michi@triodia.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: If I use activate_object_with_id and the object ID is already in the AOM, the operation raises ObjectAlreadyActive. If I use activate_object_with_id and the servant is already in the AOM, and the POA has UNIQUE_ID, the operation raises ServantAlreadyActive. What happens if I have UNIQUE_ID, and I run the following code? poa->activate_object_with_id(my_id, my_servant); poa->activate_object_with_id(my_id, my_servant); // ??? Which exception is raised on the second call, ObjectAlreadyActive or ServantAlreadyActive? -- Jishnu Mukerji Systems Architect Email: jis@fpk.hp.com Hewlett-Packard EIAL, Tel: +1 973 443 7528 300 Campus Drive, 2E-62, Fax: +1 973 443 7422 Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA. Sender: jon@floorboard.com Message-ID: <38238C2E.5224C1AE@floorboard.com> Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 18:02:22 -0800 From: Jonathan Biggar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4m) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jishnu Mukerji CC: orb_revision@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue 2549 References: <382373FB.2B21D830@fpk.hp.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: 3`Ne9ln:!!T*=e9TDCe9 Jishnu Mukerji wrote: > > Reading through the archive I get the sense that this issue is > begging to be > closed no change. > > What say y'all? I agree. The POA will raise one or the other. Which one depends on the implementation, and the implementation should be free to choose which test to make first. > Issue 2549: activate_object_with_id and exceptions (orb_revision) > > http://www.omg.org/issues/issue2549.txt > Source: DSTC (Mr. Michi Henning, michi@triodia.com) > Nature: Uncategorized Issue > Severity: > Summary: If I use activate_object_with_id and the object ID is > already in the > AOM, the operation raises ObjectAlreadyActive. If I use > activate_object_with_id > and > the servant is already in the AOM, and the POA has UNIQUE_ID, the > operation > raises ServantAlreadyActive. What happens if I have UNIQUE_ID, and I > run the > following code? poa->activate_object_with_id(my_id, my_servant); > poa->activate_object_with_id(my_id, my_servant); // ??? Which > exception is > raised on the > second call, ObjectAlreadyActive or ServantAlreadyActive? > > -- > Jishnu Mukerji > Systems Architect > > Email: jis@fpk.hp.com Hewlett-Packard EIAL, > Tel: +1 973 443 7528 300 Campus Drive, 2E-62, > Fax: +1 973 443 7422 Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA. -- Jon Biggar Floorboard Software jon@floorboard.com jon@biggar.org Sender: jis@fpk.hp.com Message-ID: <38274500.6C6406EA@fpk.hp.com> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 16:47:44 -0500 From: Jishnu Mukerji Organization: Hewlett-Packard EIAL X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; U; HP-UX B.11.00 9000/889) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: orb_revision@omg.org Subject: Issue 2549 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: JVDe9kactivate_object_with_id(my_id, my_servant); poa->activate_object_with_id(my_id, my_servant); // ??? Which exception is raised on the second call, ObjectAlreadyActive or ServantAlreadyActive? Resolution: The POA will raise one or the other. Which one depends on the implementation, and the implementation should be free to choose which test to make first. Jishnu. -- Jishnu Mukerji Systems Architect Email: jis@fpk.hp.com Hewlett-Packard EIAL, Tel: +1 973 443 7528 300 Campus Drive, 2E-62, Fax: +1 973 443 7422 Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA. Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:15:14 +1000 (EST) From: Michi Henning X-Sender: michi@bobo.triodia.com To: Jishnu Mukerji cc: orb_revision@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue 2549 In-Reply-To: <38274500.6C6406EA@fpk.hp.com> Message-ID: Organization: Object Oriented Concepts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: ,eR!!'f$!!#h[d9-O$e9 On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Jishnu Mukerji wrote: > Resolution: The POA will raise one or the other. Which one depends on the > implementation, and the implementation should be free to choose which test to > make first. Sounds fine to me. Cheers, Michi. -- Michi Henning +61 7 3236 1633 Object Oriented Concepts +61 4 1118 2700 (mobile) PO Box 372 +61 7 3211 0047 (fax) Annerley 4103 michi@ooc.com.au AUSTRALIA http://www.ooc.com.au/staff/michi-henning.html