Issue 290:  u++ binding for ServerRequest pseudo object (cxx_revision)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Interpretation
Severity:  Medium
Summary: Summary: Class defined for ServerRequest shows op_def() operation. Seems not to be in IDL for ServerRequest and there is no description in the rest of the section (CORBA 2 spec, Sect. 18.4.1)

Resolution: Close no change. This issue is already addressed in the CORBA 2.3 specification.
Revised Text:  --related to issue128 orb_revision
Actions taken:
October 24, 1996: received issue
June 13, 2000: closed issue
Discussion: 


End of Annotations:=====
This is issue # 290


C++ binding for ServerRequest pseudo object

    Desc: Class defined for ServerRequest shows op_def() operation. Seems   
          not to be in IDL for ServerRequest and there is no description in
          the rest of the section (CORBA 2 spec, Sect. 18.4.1)              

Assigned to: cxx_revision        ]      Spec ver:  

           --related to issue128 orb_revision--


-Juergen 

From vlatas@send.ENET.dec.com  Thu Oct 24 11:45:41 1996
Received: from mail12.digital.com by amethyst.omg.org.omg.org (5.4R2.01/1.34)
	id AA12197; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:45:41 -0400
From: vlatas@send.ENET.dec.com
Received: from us2rmc.zko.dec.com by mail12.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.5/1.0/WV)
	id LAA26214; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:32:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from send.enet by us2rmc.zko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94)
	id AA13886; Thu, 24 Oct 96 11:30:25 -0400
Message-Id: <9610241530.AA13886@us2rmc.zko.dec.com>
Received: from send.enet; by us2rmc.enet; Thu, 24 Oct 96 11:31:11 EDT
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 11:31:11 EDT
To: cxx_revision@omg.org
Cc: vlatas@send.ENET.dec.com
Apparently-To: cxx_revision@omg.org
Subject: Question on C++ binding for ServerRequest pseudo object

Hi,

    I have a question on the C++ mapping for the ServerRequest pseudo
   object.

    The class defined for ServerRequest (CORBA 2 spec, Section 18.4.1)
   shows an op_def() operation. This doesn't appear to be in the IDL
   for the ServerRequest and I didn't see a description of it in the
   rest of the section.

    Is op_def() supposed to be in the class? It seems like something
   that is convenient to have, but it didn't appear that it was absolutely
   necessary given the op_name() is there.

thanks
Tony Vlatas