Issue 2589:  How can we bound the range of invoke ids in the IDL? (incorba-ftf)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Summary: Section number: 4.2.1
 
 Problem: How can we bound the range of invoke ids in the IDL?  Q773 requires 
 invoke ids in the range -128 to 127. ROS has no limits.

Resolution: 
Revised Text:  How can we bound the range of invoke ids in the IDL?  Q773 requires 
Actions taken:
April 1, 1999: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
Issue: 6

Section number: 4.2.1

Problem: How can we bound the range of invoke ids in the IDL?  Q773
requires 
invoke ids in the range -128 to 127. ROS has no limits.

Proposed solution:

Rationale:

From: "Rob Brennan" <brennanr@Teltec.DCU.IE>
To: "ftf" <incorba-ftf@omg.org>
Subject: IN/CORBA: Issue 2589
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:44:57 -0000
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1154
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-UIDL: QV%!!eN*!![Kad9/h#e9

Hi All,

this one says:
"How can we bound the range of invoke ids in
the IDL? Q773 requires invoke ids in the range -128 to 127. ROS has no
limits. "

I suppose that the only way to bound the range in IDL
is to put in a comment in the IDL and some text in
the specification. We can reference Q.773.

On the issue of ROS conformance... I am less
convinced that this is an issue. I think that we
should encourage CORBA implementations to
only use the Q.773 range but be prepared to
accept larger numbers via the current mechanism
of passing a ULong ...of course if ROS is truly
unbounded then this is insufficient anyway, right?
Does it really increase ROS interoperability by
having this larger range of possible values?

Note the resolution of issue 2590 will have an 
impact here - but I think that is straightforward,
see a separate mail.

rgds
rob