Issue 2600:  Shouldn’t it be typedef string CORBA::ScopedName? (incorba-ftf)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Summary: Section number: 7.1, page 108
 
 Problem: Shouldn’t it be typedef string CORBA::ScopedName?

Resolution: 
Revised Text:  Shouldn’t it be typedef string CORBA::ScopedName?
Actions taken:
April 1, 1999: received issue
Discussion: 
 received issue
End of Annotations:=====
Issue: 17

Sec
Proposed solution: Yes, make the change.

Rationale:
tion number: 7.1, page 108

Problem: Shouldn

From: "Rob Brennan" <brennanr@Teltec.DCU.IE>
To: "ftf" <incorba-ftf@omg.org>
Subject: IN/CORBA - Issue 2600
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:43:59 -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: NIAe93Jld9*T*!!94Fe9

Hi All,

this issue deals with a mistake that slipped
into the IDL in the adopted specification.
We use CORBA::ScopedName to hold
interface names in a few places and I had
difficulty getting this to compile with 
commercial ORBs (I think I got it to work with 
Orbix using some non-standard include files).
Thus I had slipped in a naughty:

typedef string ScopedName;

to make it more generally applicable. The
issue say that this is a bad thing and should
be removed (which is true). However the IDL
will then be uncompilable (although technically 
legal).

I am wondering if perhaps I should just remove
the use of ScopedName and use a string
instead, at least this means that it would compile
on all ORBs. FYI this is the approach of the 
CORBA/TMN spec.

What do you think?

rgds
rob