Issue 2552:  Treatment of classes with writeReplace/readResolve methods (java2idl-rtf)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Summary: We should consider whether a Java class that has a writeReplace or a
 readResolve method (with the appropriate signature for use by object
 serialization) should map to a custom valuetype in IDL instead of
 a normal valuetype.  We should also think harder about the impact
 of writeReplace/readResolve semantics on non-Java ORBs: can non-Java
 implementations properly receive and send instances of such classes,
 maintaining all the proper sharing, without running into type checking
 problems, and without any additions to non-Java ORBs?
 

Resolution: 
Revised Text: Add the following text at the end of section 1.3.5.6:

An RMI/IDL value type that has a writeReplace or readResolve method is
mapped to an OMG IDL valuetype using the same mapping rules that apply
to other RMI/IDL value types.
Actions taken:
March 19, 1999: received issue
July 30, 2007: closed issue
Discussion: 
Closed, no change. See revised text below.
End of Annotations:=====
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:02:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Bob Scheifler - SMI Software Development <rws@east.sun.com>
Reply-To: Bob Scheifler - SMI Software Development <rws@east.sun.com>
Subject: java2idl issue: treatment of classes with
writeReplace/readResolve methods
To: issues@omg.org
Cc: java2idl-rtf@omg.org
Content-MD5: eTAb05ACA1mY6PnRTz1++w==

We should consider whether a Java class that has a writeReplace or a
readResolve method (with the appropriate signature for use by object
serialization) should map to a custom valuetype in IDL instead of
a normal valuetype.  We should also think harder about the impact
of writeReplace/readResolve semantics on non-Java ORBs: can non-Java
implementations properly receive and send instances of such classes,
maintaining all the proper sharing, without running into type checking
problems, and without any additions to non-Java ORBs?

- Bob

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:54:36 .
From: Simon Nash <nash@hursley.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Jishnu Mukerji <jishnui@hp.com>, Ken Cavanaugh <Ken.Cavanaugh@sun.com>,
        Jeffrey Mischkinsky <jmischki@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us>,
        Yoshitaka Honishi <honi@jp.fujitsu.com>, Andy Piper <andyp@bea.com>,
        Naveed Shaikh <Naveed.Shaikh@borland.com>,
        Bill Beckwith <bill.beckwith@ois.com>, Eoghan Glynn <eglynn@iona.com>
CC: java2idl-rtf@omg.org
Subject: Proposed resolution for Java to IDL issue 2552


Here is a proposed resolution for issue 2552.


Issue title:


Treatment of classes with writeReplace/readResolve methods


Issue summary:


We should consider whether a Java class that has a writeReplace or a
readResolve method (with the appropriate signature for use by object
serialization) should map to a custom valuetype in IDL instead of
a normal valuetype.  We should also think harder about the impact
of writeReplace/readResolve semantics on non-Java ORBs: can non-Java
implementations properly receive and send instances of such classes,
maintaining all the proper sharing, without running into type checking
problems, and without any additions to non-Java ORBs?


Proposed resolution:


Close, no change.  Add the following text at the end of section 1.3.5.6:


An RMI/IDL value type that has a writeReplace or readResolve method is
mapped to an OMG IDL valuetype using the same mapping rules that apply
to other RMI/IDL value types.



  Simon
-- 
Simon C Nash   IBM Distinguished Engineer
Hursley Park, Winchester, UK   nash@hursley.ibm.com