Issue 2916: When does a multiassociation TcUse know that it has been finished with? (incorba-ftf)
Source: Ericsson (Mr. Neill Jones, etlnljs(at)etlxdmx.ericsson.se)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: The creation of a TcUser interface with multiple associations does not have
a standardised way for destruction.

Proposed solutions

1. Add a destroy() method to TcUser
2. Explicitly state in the RFP that the CosLifeCycle::destroy() method should
be called once the object is no longer required.
Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
September 22, 1999: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 20:27:20 +0100
From: Neill Jones <jonesn@Teltec.DCU.IE>
Organization: Teltec DUC
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: issues@omg.org
Subject: incorba-ftf
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-UIDL: J8Ee9(Rad9]$9e9I4G!!

Hi all

Subject: When does a multiassociation TcUse know that it has been
finished with?

The creation of a TcUser interface with multiple associations does not
have
a standardised way for destruction.

Proposed solutions

1. Add a destroy() method to TcUser
2. Explicitly state in the RFP that the CosLifeCycle::destroy() method
should
be called once the object is no longer required.

One problem with 2 is that there may be a misunderstanding in
semantics. For
example, the destroy operation may be called by a generic management
system
for clearing up unwanted CORBA objects within a network (I have seen
this
cited by Jon Siegal (I think) as an example of its use). This would
require
the object to die straight away (although what happens to the process
containing

it remains a mystery).

However, for efficiency reasons, the TcUser may be part of a pool of
objects,
and the destroy adds it back to the pool rather than destroys it.

This two behaviours are distinct, and there is no way to know which
was
required.

Therefore solution 1 is recommended.

Regards

Neill Jones
Teltec, DCU