Issue 3040: Minor code allocation inconsistency (interop) Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Russell Butek, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: CORBA 2.3, section 15.4.3.2 - Reply Body - states: "A vendor (or group of vendors) wishing to define a specific set of system exception minor codes should obtain a unique VMCID from the OMG, and then define up to 4096 minor codes for each system exception." Section 3.17 - Standard Exceptions - states: "Within a vendor assigned space, the assignment of values to minor codes is left to the vendor." The first dictates that minor code numbers are in the space of each Standard Exception. Ie, the true # of minor codes is (4096 times #-of-Standard-Exceptions). But the second implies that vendors can allocate their minor codes however they wish. So which is it? The first mandate (if you read it as a mandate) or the second freedom? Resolution: Take proposed resolution from Core RTF discussion in issue Archive Revised Text: Change paragraph in section 15.4.3.2 - Reply Body : "A vendor (or group of vendors) wishing to define a specific set of system exception minor codes should obtain a unique VMCID from the OMG, and then define up to 4096 minor codes for each system exception." be replaced with with "A vendor (or group of vendors) wishing to define a specific set of system exception minor codes should obtain a unique VMCID from the OMG, and then use those 4096 minor codes as they see fit; for example, defining up to 4096 minor codes for each system exception." Actions taken: November 12, 1999: received issue January 6, 2000: moved from core to interop rtf October 4, 2000: closed issue; Resolved Discussion: End of Annotations:===== From: butek@us.ibm.com X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMUS To: orb_revision@omg.org, issues@omg.org Message-ID: <85256827.00569588.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:42:42 -0600 Subject: Minor code allocation inconsistency Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: VlQ!!"C~e9_eid9~*?!! CORBA 2.3, section 15.4.3.2 - Reply Body - states: "A vendor (or group of vendors) wishing to define a specific set of system exception minor codes should obtain a unique VMCID from the OMG, and then define up to 4096 minor codes for each system exception." Section 3.17 - Standard Exceptions - states: "Within a vendor assigned space, the assignment of values to minor codes is left to the vendor." The first dictates that minor code numbers are in the space of each Standard Exception. Ie, the true # of minor codes is (4096 times #-of-Standard-Exceptions). But the second implies that vendors can allocate their minor codes however they wish. So which is it? The first mandate (if you read it as a mandate) or the second freedom? The first is certainly an efficient utilization of minor codes, but we would prefer that it was merely a suggestion rather than a mandate. How about: "A vendor (or group of vendors) wishing to define a specific set of system exception minor codes should obtain a unique VMCID from the OMG, and then use those 4096 minor codes as they see fit; for example, defining up to 4096 minor codes for each system exception." Russell Butek butek@us.ibm.com Sender: jbiggar@cisco.com Message-ID: <382C5B31.1F653431@floorboard.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:23:45 -0800 From: Jonathan Biggar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: butek@us.ibm.com CC: orb_revision@omg.org, issues@omg.org Subject: Re: Minor code allocation inconsistency References: <85256827.00569588.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: V > CORBA 2.3, section 15.4.3.2 - Reply Body - states: > > "A vendor (or group of vendors) wishing to define a specific set of > system > exception minor codes should obtain a unique VMCID from the OMG, and > then > define up to 4096 minor codes for each system exception." > > Section 3.17 - Standard Exceptions - states: > > "Within a vendor assigned space, the assignment of values to minor > codes is > left to the vendor." > > The first dictates that minor code numbers are in the space of each > Standard Exception. Ie, the true # of minor codes is (4096 times > #-of-Standard-Exceptions). But the second implies that vendors can > allocate their minor codes however they wish. > > So which is it? The first mandate (if you read it as a mandate) or > the > second freedom? > > The first is certainly an efficient utilization of minor codes, but > we > would prefer that it was merely a suggestion rather than a mandate. > How > about: > > "A vendor (or group of vendors) wishing to define a specific set of > system > exception minor codes should obtain a unique VMCID from the OMG, and > then > use those 4096 minor codes as they see fit; for example, defining up > to > 4096 minor codes for each system exception." Call me slow, but I fail to see a problem. :-) The first statement says that there are (4069 * # exceptions) available codes within each VMCID. This gives the vendor to reuse a minor code number for each type of system exception. The second statement says that the vendor can assign them any way that they want to. What's the problem? -- Jon Biggar Floorboard Software jon@floorboard.com jon@biggar.org Sender: jis@fpk.hp.com Message-ID: <382C810E.69A175AE@fpk.hp.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:05:18 -0500 From: Jishnu Mukerji Organization: Hewlett-Packard EIAL X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; U; HP-UX B.11.00 9000/889) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: butek@us.ibm.com CC: orb_revision@omg.org, issues@omg.org Subject: Re: Minor code allocation inconsistency References: <85256827.00569588.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: =61!!~EJ!!Vf1e9:p#"! butek@us.ibm.com wrote: > > CORBA 2.3, section 15.4.3.2 - Reply Body - states: > > "A vendor (or group of vendors) wishing to define a specific set of > system > exception minor codes should obtain a unique VMCID from the OMG, and > then > define up to 4096 minor codes for each system exception." This says that vendors get VMCIDs allocated to them thus giving them the right to allocate the associated 4096 minor codes per system exception allocated to them however they please. > Section 3.17 - Standard Exceptions - states: > > "Within a vendor assigned space, the assignment of values to minor > codes is > left to the vendor." This says that the allocation of minor codes within the space of 4096 minor codes associated with the VMCID allocated to the vendor is left to the vendor. > The first dictates that minor code numbers are in the space of each > Standard Exception. Ie, the true # of minor codes is (4096 times > #-of-Standard-Exceptions). What does that mean? I am unable to figure out how you get that meaning out of what is written. The only misreadable mandate that I see is one caused by the "should" being inadvertently applied to the "define upto 4096 minor codes". Vendors don't have to define all 4096 that are allocated to them. Only the ones that they actually want to use need to be defined. This can be fixed easily by inserting "they can" immediately following the "then" in the excerpted text from section 15.4.3.2. BTW, the 4096 that are allocated to them is the block with the higher order 20 bits (if I remember right) set to the allocated VMCID. > But the second implies that vendors can > allocate their minor codes however they wish. > So which is it? The first mandate (if you read it as a mandate) or the > second freedom? > > The first is certainly an efficient utilization of minor codes, but we > would prefer that it was merely a suggestion rather than a mandate. How > about: > > "A vendor (or group of vendors) wishing to define a specific set of system > exception minor codes should obtain a unique VMCID from the OMG, and then > use those 4096 minor codes as they see fit; for example, defining up to > 4096 minor codes for each system exception." Since this says the same thing as what the first one is supposed to say, I guess I am at a loss to figure out what is wrong.:~} Regards, Jishnu. -- Jishnu Mukerji Systems Architect Email: jis@fpk.hp.com Hewlett-Packard EIAL, Tel: +1 973 443 7528 300 Campus Drive, 2E-62, Fax: +1 973 443 7422 Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA. From: butek@us.ibm.com X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMUS To: Jonathan Biggar cc: orb_revision@omg.org, issues@omg.org Message-ID: <85256827.0071C7B8.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:39:43 -0600 Subject: Re: Minor code allocation inconsistency Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: "'d!!RMMe9E9+e9(Oi!! What if I want to do the following: (MyVMCID | 1) is a minor code for COMM_FAILURE (MyVMCID | 2) is a minor code for INTERNAL (MyVMCID | 3) is a minor code for UNKNOWN etc. The first statement implies that I cannot do this. I agree that doing things this way means I only have 4096 minor codes for ALL Standard Exceptions rather than 4096 for each; but this still might be useful. For example: I have to allocate minor codes to a number of components. I can tell each component owner: "John, you have minor codes 1-100; Jane, you have 101-200, " etc, without worrying about allocating them per Standard Exception. Another example: each minor code indicates a particular point of failure, regardless of the exception raised. When debugging, I could look at the minor code and know exactly where in the code the failure occurred. I suppose you could treat the mandate of the first statement as still being followed in a rather degenerate manner: 4096 minor codes are allocated for each exception, but only a scattered few of them are actually used. But this is stretching the mindset a bit, and to most folks it would appear that the spec was being violated. Russell Butek butek@us.ibm.com Jonathan Biggar on 11/12/99 12:23:45 PM To: Russell Butek/Austin/IBM@IBMUS cc: orb_revision@omg.org, issues@omg.org Subject: Re: Minor code allocation inconsistency butek@us.ibm.com wrote: > > CORBA 2.3, section 15.4.3.2 - Reply Body - states: > > "A vendor (or group of vendors) wishing to define a specific set of system > exception minor codes should obtain a unique VMCID from the OMG, and then > define up to 4096 minor codes for each system exception." > > Section 3.17 - Standard Exceptions - states: > > "Within a vendor assigned space, the assignment of values to minor codes is > left to the vendor." > > The first dictates that minor code numbers are in the space of each > Standard Exception. Ie, the true # of minor codes is (4096 times > #-of-Standard-Exceptions). But the second implies that vendors can > allocate their minor codes however they wish. > > So which is it? The first mandate (if you read it as a mandate) or the > second freedom? > > The first is certainly an efficient utilization of minor codes, but we > would prefer that it was merely a suggestion rather than a mandate. How > about: > > "A vendor (or group of vendors) wishing to define a specific set of system > exception minor codes should obtain a unique VMCID from the OMG, and then > use those 4096 minor codes as they see fit; for example, defining up to > 4096 minor codes for each system exception." Call me slow, but I fail to see a problem. :-) The first statement says that there are (4069 * # exceptions) available codes within each VMCID. This gives the vendor to reuse a minor code number for each type of system exception. The second statement says that the vendor can assign them any way that they want to. What's the problem? -- Jon Biggar Floorboard Software jon@floorboard.com jon@biggar.org Sender: jis@fpk.hp.com Message-ID: <382C9AFB.1DAF9F83@fpk.hp.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:55:55 -0500 From: Jishnu Mukerji Organization: Hewlett-Packard EIAL X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; U; HP-UX B.11.00 9000/889) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: butek@us.ibm.com Cc: Jonathan Biggar , orb_revision@omg.org Subject: Re: Minor code allocation inconsistency References: <85256827.0071C7B8.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: B(~e9>F#!!!@Ie9$1d!! > > What if I want to do the following: > > (MyVMCID | 1) is a minor code for COMM_FAILURE > (MyVMCID | 2) is a minor code for INTERNAL > (MyVMCID | 3) is a minor code for UNKNOWN > etc. > > The first statement implies that I cannot do this. I don't know why someone would do something like that, but we certainly should not prevent them from doing it. BTW, I did not read that meaning in it, but I can see how one could. > I agree that doing things this way means I only have 4096 minor codes for > ALL Standard Exceptions rather than 4096 for each; but this still might be > useful. > > For example: I have to allocate minor codes to a number of components. I > can tell each component owner: "John, you have minor codes 1-100; Jane, > you have 101-200, " etc, without worrying about allocating them per > Standard Exception. > > Another example: each minor code indicates a particular point of failure, > regardless of the exception raised. When debugging, I could look at the > minor code and know exactly where in the code the failure occurred. Actually, just for fun one could allocate to oneself 18 (just to pick a random number) VMCIDs, one per division, and do further nifty encoding based on which division the code came from too.:-) 2^20 - some delta reserved by OMG, is a lot of VMCIDs after all.:-) Just think how many PolicyTypeIds one could get that way too! Afterall the proprietary policy type id space is also for all practical purposes determined by the VMCID allocated to a vendor since the same number gets allocated as VPVID too. > I suppose you could treat the mandate of the first statement as still being > followed in a rather degenerate manner: 4096 minor codes are allocated for > each exception, but only a scattered few of them are actually used. But > this is stretching the mindset a bit, and to most folks it would appear > that the spec was being violated. Bottom line is that the first part is not intended to convey the mandate that you ascribe to it. I think, if better wording would reduce the chances of such confusion we should replace the wording there by something like what you proposed. The meaning that your proposed wording conveys to me is exactly what was intended. I don't really think we should spend an incredible amount of time arguing this. I'd rather that people spent their time resolving the real difficult POA issues or writing up a concise proposed resolution for the promotion of exceptions to full typehood.:-) Thanks, Jishnu. -- Jishnu Mukerji Systems Architect Email: jis@fpk.hp.com Hewlett-Packard EIAL, Tel: +1 973 443 7528 300 Campus Drive, 2E-62, Fax: +1 973 443 7422 Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA. Sender: jbiggar@cisco.com Message-ID: <382CAA27.870AEAE9@floorboard.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:00:39 -0800 From: Jonathan Biggar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Kyzivat CC: "'butek@us.ibm.com'" , "'orb_revision@omg.org'" , "'issues@omg.org'" Subject: Re: Minor code allocation inconsistency References: <9B164B713EE9D211B6DC0090273CEEA91401D6@bos1.noblenet.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: pl'!!^gY!!bhW!!d= > > From: butek@us.ibm.com [mailto:butek@us.ibm.com] > > > What if I want to do the following: > > > > (MyVMCID | 1) is a minor code for COMM_FAILURE > > (MyVMCID | 2) is a minor code for INTERNAL > > (MyVMCID | 3) is a minor code for UNKNOWN > > etc. > > > > The first statement implies that I cannot do this. > > I don't see that any of the statements prevent you from doing this. > > In our product, we defined a bunch of minor codes with our VMCID. > These codes may be used with any system exception, and have the > same meaning, in the context of that exception. (Obviously not all > the minor codes are significant for each and every major exception.) > > I don't consider this to be in violation of anything, even though it > is > different than the code assignment technique that was (subsequently) > chosen > for the standardized minor codes. > > At worst, it is equivalent to having independently assigned minor > codes for > each of the system exceptions, where the same minor code value just > coincidentally has a similar meaning for each major code. I suppose if you wanted to be smart, you could allocate the ones you want the same across all system exceptions from the top (4095 and down) and the ones you want to assign separately for each system exception from the bottom (0 and up). Or just get two VMCIDs. -- Jon Biggar Floorboard Software jon@floorboard.com jon@biggar.org From: Paul Kyzivat To: "'butek@us.ibm.com'" , "'Jonathan Biggar'" Cc: "'orb_revision@omg.org'" , "'issues@omg.org'" Subject: RE: Minor code allocation inconsistency Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 18:47:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: PR0e9VMHe9d1Ce9p#"!! > From: butek@us.ibm.com [mailto:butek@us.ibm.com] > What if I want to do the following: > > (MyVMCID | 1) is a minor code for COMM_FAILURE > (MyVMCID | 2) is a minor code for INTERNAL > (MyVMCID | 3) is a minor code for UNKNOWN > etc. > > The first statement implies that I cannot do this. I don't see that any of the statements prevent you from doing this. In our product, we defined a bunch of minor codes with our VMCID. These codes may be used with any system exception, and have the same meaning, in the context of that exception. (Obviously not all the minor codes are significant for each and every major exception.) I don't consider this to be in violation of anything, even though it is different than the code assignment technique that was (subsequently) chosen for the standardized minor codes. At worst, it is equivalent to having independently assigned minor codes for each of the system exceptions, where the same minor code value just coincidentally has a similar meaning for each major code. From: butek@us.ibm.com X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMUS To: Jishnu Mukerji cc: orb_revision@omg.org Message-ID: <8525682A.001BFD33.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 01:08:29 +0000 Subject: Re: Minor code allocation inconsistency Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: RS2!!?@~!!;,p!! on 11/12/99 10:55:55 PM > <...snip...> > Bottom line is that the first part is not intended to convey the > mandate that > you ascribe to it. I think, if better wording would reduce the > chances of such > confusion we should replace the wording there by something like what > you > proposed. The meaning that your proposed wording conveys to me is > exactly what > was intended. > > I don't really think we should spend an incredible amount of time > arguing this. > I'd rather that people spent their time resolving the real difficult > POA issues > or writing up a concise proposed resolution for the promotion of exceptions to > full typehood.:-) I wholeheartedly agree. I just wanted to make sure CORBA didn't impose a restriction. As long as that wasn't the intent, I'm happy; though clarifying that in the wording certainly wouldn't hurt. Thanks. > > Thanks, > > Jishnu. Russell Butek butek@us.ibm.com To: butek@us.ibm.com cc: Jonathan Biggar , orb_revision@omg.org, issues@omg.org Subject: Re: Minor code allocation inconsistency In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:39:43 PST." <85256827.0071C7B8.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:08:43 PST Sender: Bill Janssen From: Bill Janssen Message-Id: <99Nov15.130847pst."3638"@watson.parc.xerox.com> Content-Type: text X-UIDL: *M3!!&Rcd9?:fd9#'@e9 In message <85256827.0071C7B8.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com>you write: >I suppose you could treat the mandate of the first statement as still being >followed in a rather degenerate manner: 4096 minor codes are allocated for >each exception, but only a scattered few of them are actually used. But >this is stretching the mindset a bit, and to most folks it would appear >that the spec was being violated. I don't think that the spec is being violated. I certainly wouldn't object if some vendor wanted to do that. How those 4K codes are assigned is up to the vendor, and if they wish to do sparse assignment that's fine with me. However, I wouldn't be crazy about seeing some vendor requesting 8K different VMCIDs so that they could do some odd scheme like that. Bill Sender: jis@fpk.hp.com Message-ID: <3874B8E6.BF32C052@fpk.hp.com> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 10:46:46 -0500 From: Jishnu Mukerji Organization: Hewlett-Packard EIAL X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; U; HP-UX B.10.10 9000/777) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Rutt , Juergen Boldt Subject: Issue 3040 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: E_~e9-cM!!K_^!!Z^!"! Tom, Here's an issue that belongs to you now, complete with a suggested resolution. Juergen, Please move this issue to Interop from Core. Thanks, Jishnu. Issue 3040: Minor code allocation inconsistency (orb_revision) Click here for this issue's archive. Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Russell Butek, butek@us.ibm.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: CORBA 2.3, section 15.4.3.2 - Reply Body - states: "A vendor (or group of vendors) wishing to define a specific set of system exception minor codes should obtain a unique VMCID from the OMG, and then define up to 4096 minor codes for each system exception." Section 3.17 - Standard Exceptions - states: "Within a vendor assigned space, the assignment of values to minor codes is left to the vendor." The first dictates that minor code numbers are in the space of each Standard Exception. Ie, the true # of minor codes is (4096 times #-of-Standard-Exceptions). But the second implies that vendors can allocate their minor codes however they wish. So which is it? The first mandate (if you read it as a mandate) or the second freedom? Resolution: Clearer wording would help, Since this impacts chapter 15 which is controlled by the Interop RTF, we will pass this on with a suggestion to the Interop RTF. Revised Text: Suggest that the paragraph in section 15.4.3.2 - Reply Body - states: "A vendor (or group of vendors) wishing to define a specific set of system exception minor codes should obtain a unique VMCID from the OMG, and then define up to 4096 minor codes for each system exception." be replaced with with "A vendor (or group of vendors) wishing to define a specific set of system exception minor codes should obtain a unique VMCID from the OMG, and then use those 4096 minor codes as they see fit; for example, defining up to 4096 minor codes for each system exception." Actions taken: Pass on with suggested replacement text to the Interop RTF. November 12, 1999: received issue -- Jishnu Mukerji Systems Architect Email: jis@fpk.hp.com Hewlett-Packard EIAL, Tel: +1 973 443 7528 300 Campus Drive, 2E-62, Fax: +1 973 443 7422 Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA.