Issue 3420: Component tag definition missing (ots-rtf) Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd (Mr. Michi Henning, michi@triodia.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Page 35 of ptc/99-10-07 talks about the transaction policies in IORs. This is incomplete, because the relevant tags must be defined in chapters 13 and 15 of the spec, but aren't. Resolution: duplicate Revised Text: Actions taken: March 15, 2000: received issue February 27, 2001: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:26:11 +1000 (EST) From: Michi Henning Reply-To: ots-rtf@omg.org To: ots-rtf@omg.org cc: issues@omg.org Subject: Component tag definition missing Message-ID: Organization: Object Oriented Concepts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: aeKe9'>N!!Z03!!"H3e9 Page 35 of ptc/99-10-07 talks about the transaction policies in IORs. This is incomplete, because the relevant tags must be defined in chapters 13 and 15 of the spec, but aren't. Cheers, Michi. -- Michi Henning +61 7 3891 5744 Object Oriented Concepts +61 4 1118 2700 (mobile) Suite 4, 904 Stanley St +61 7 3891 5009 (fax) East Brisbane 4169 michi@ooc.com.au AUSTRALIA http://www.ooc.com.au/staff/michi-henning.html Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:37:51 -0700 From: Blake Biesecker To: ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: [juergen@omg.org: issue 3420 -- OTS RTF issue] Message-ID: <20000412183751.A15981@gemstone.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre4i X-Disclaimer: I only speak for myself, unless I expressly indicate otherwise. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: [kTd9_@Ae9&QC!!0ni!! Does anyone know which document we should refer to when suggesting changes to chapters 13 and 15 of the spec? Is there anything more current than formal/99-10-07? Blake ----- Forwarded message from Juergen Boldt ----- X-Sender: juergen@emerald.omg.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:20:52 -0500 To: issues@emerald.omg.org, ots-rtf@emerald.omg.org From: Juergen Boldt Subject: issue 3420 -- OTS RTF issue This is issue # 3420 Component tag definition missing Page 35 of ptc/99-10-07 talks about the transaction policies in IORs. This is incomplete, because the relevant tags must be defined in chapters 13 and 15 of the spec, but aren't. ================================================================ Juergen Boldt Senior Member of Technical Staff Object Management Group Tel. +1-781 444 0404 ext. 132 250 First Avenue, Suite 201 Fax: +1-781 444 0320 Needham, MA 02494, USA Email: juergen@omg.org ================================================================ ----- End forwarded message ----- Sender: jis@fpk.hp.com Message-ID: <38F5DD52.FC4DD1C0@fpk.hp.com> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:44:34 -0400 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: Blake Biesecker Cc: ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: [juergen@omg.org: issue 3420 -- OTS RTF issue] References: <20000412183751.A15981@gemstone.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: UP/e9e@m!!,Y_d99iU!! Blake Biesecker wrote: > > Does anyone know which document we should refer to when suggesting > changes to chapters 13 and 15 of the spec? Is there anything more > current than formal/99-10-07? > > Blake Since the next target is 2.4, I'd recommend that we look at the pre-2.4 draft that I posted several weeks back as ptc/00-03-02. Whatever needs to be fixed for 2.4 needs to be fixed in that draft. Jishnu. Ps. I don't see anything about TransactionPolicy or TransactionPolicyComponentId in ptc/00-03-02. Has Andrew assigned tag values for these yet? Apparently these were not listed in the "Changes to CORBA" appendix of the Messaging spec, or I simply missed them if they were listed there, when the Messaging stuff was edited into the Core. If you let me know what the constant values are, I will gladly add them to the appropriate places in Core editorially. What needs to be fixed in ptc/99-10-07 is that the assigned tag values need to be edited in there too. > ----- Forwarded message from Juergen Boldt ----- > > X-Sender: juergen@emerald.omg.org > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 > Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:20:52 -0500 > To: issues@emerald.omg.org, ots-rtf@emerald.omg.org > From: Juergen Boldt > Subject: issue 3420 -- OTS RTF issue > > This is issue # 3420 > > Component tag definition missing > > Page 35 of ptc/99-10-07 talks about the transaction policies in > IORs. > This is incomplete, because the relevant tags must be defined in > chapters > 13 and 15 of the spec, but aren't. > > ================================================================ > > Juergen Boldt > Senior Member of Technical Staff > > Object Management Group Tel. +1-781 444 0404 ext. 132 > 250 First Avenue, Suite 201 Fax: +1-781 444 0320 > Needham, MA 02494, USA Email: juergen@omg.org > > > ================================================================ > > ----- End forwarded message ----- -- 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: jis@fpk.hp.com Message-ID: <38F5FF51.FECE3995@fpk.hp.com> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:09:37 -0400 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: Blake Biesecker Cc: ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: [juergen@omg.org: issue 3420 -- OTS RTF issue] References: <20000412183751.A15981@gemstone.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: GQV!!JT5!!(_$!!A(`d9 Blake Biesecker wrote: > > Does anyone know which document we should refer to when suggesting > changes to chapters 13 and 15 of the spec? Is there anything more > current than formal/99-10-07? > > Blake > > ----- Forwarded message from Juergen Boldt ----- > > X-Sender: juergen@emerald.omg.org > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 > Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:20:52 -0500 > To: issues@emerald.omg.org, ots-rtf@emerald.omg.org > From: Juergen Boldt > Subject: issue 3420 -- OTS RTF issue > > This is issue # 3420 > > Component tag definition missing > > Page 35 of ptc/99-10-07 talks about the transaction policies in > IORs. > This is incomplete, because the relevant tags must be defined in > chapters > 13 and 15 of the spec, but aren't. Blake, A little further digging shows that TransactionPolicyComponentId has been changed to TAG_TRANSACTION_POLICY to align with component tag naming convention, and it has been assigned the value 26. I am adding that to Chapter 13. I have no idea what happened to the TransactionPolicy object and its policy tag. Perhaps you can chase Andrew and Ed and figure out what happened to it. Thanks, Jishnu. Sender: jis@fpk.hp.com Message-ID: <38F61B37.44753538@fpk.hp.com> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:08:39 -0400 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: Andrew Watson Cc: Blake Biesecker , ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: [juergen@omg.org: issue 3420 -- OTS RTF issue] References: <20000412183751.A15981@gemstone.com> <38F5FF51.FECE3995@fpk.hp.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: I0!!!'ned93b,e9)<*e9 Andrew, Have you assigned any Policy Type Tag for a tag named TransactionPolicyType? If so, what is its value? If not we need to get a value assigned to it from the OMG standard pool. While we are at it, we could also change its name to TRANSACTION_POLICY_TYPE, to make it consistent with the naming convention for such things. Please let us know at your earliest convenience. Thanks, Jishnu. Jishnu Mukerji wrote: > > Blake Biesecker wrote: > > > > Does anyone know which document we should refer to when suggesting > > changes to chapters 13 and 15 of the spec? Is there anything more > > current than formal/99-10-07? > > > > Blake > > > > ----- Forwarded message from Juergen Boldt ----- > > Subject: issue 3420 -- OTS RTF issue > > > > This is issue # 3420 > > > > Component tag definition missing > > > > Page 35 of ptc/99-10-07 talks about the transaction policies in > IORs. > > This is incomplete, because the relevant tags must be defined in > chapters > > 13 and 15 of the spec, but aren't. > > Blake, > > A little further digging shows that TransactionPolicyComponentId has > been changed to > TAG_TRANSACTION_POLICY to align with component tag naming > convention, and it has been assigned the > value 26. I am adding that to Chapter 13. I have no idea what > happened to the TransactionPolicy > object and its policy tag. Perhaps you can chase Andrew and Ed and > figure out what happened to it. > > 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. X-Sender: ecobb@svlhome2.beasys.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:58:53 -0700 To: Blake Biesecker , ots-rtf@omg.org From: Edward Cobb Subject: Re: [juergen@omg.org: issue 3420 -- OTS RTF issue] In-Reply-To: <20000412183751.A15981@gemstone.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-UIDL: Q-Sd9L;Ie9T%Td9N5P!! While it is probably true that these things should be in the Core specification, they are currently defined in the OTS draft (ptc/99-10-07) produced by the Components FTF. Jishnu (I think) has a slightly different version (I don't know the document number) which should be equivalent to the CCM draft without the CCM changes. At 06:37 PM 4/12/00 -0700, Blake Biesecker wrote: >Does anyone know which document we should refer to when suggesting >changes to chapters 13 and 15 of the spec? Is there anything more >current than formal/99-10-07? > >Blake > >----- Forwarded message from Juergen Boldt ----- > >X-Sender: juergen@emerald.omg.org >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 >Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:20:52 -0500 >To: issues@emerald.omg.org, ots-rtf@emerald.omg.org >From: Juergen Boldt >Subject: issue 3420 -- OTS RTF issue > >This is issue # 3420 > >Component tag definition missing > >Page 35 of ptc/99-10-07 talks about the transaction policies in IORs. >This is incomplete, because the relevant tags must be defined in chapters >13 and 15 of the spec, but aren't. > >================================================================ > >Juergen Boldt >Senior Member of Technical Staff > >Object Management Group Tel. +1-781 444 0404 ext. 132 >250 First Avenue, Suite 201 Fax: +1-781 444 0320 >Needham, MA 02494, USA Email: juergen@omg.org > > > >================================================================ > >----- End forwarded message ----- > > ************************************************************** Ed Cobb, Director, Advanced Technology & Standards BEA Systems, Inc., 2315 North First St., San Jose, CA 95131 Tel: 408-570-8264 / Fax: 408-570-8942 E-mail: ed.cobb@beasys.com ************************************************************** X-Sender: ecobb@svlhome2.beasys.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:10:12 -0700 To: Jishnu Mukerji , Andrew Watson From: Edward Cobb Subject: Re: [juergen@omg.org: issue 3420 -- OTS RTF issue] Cc: Blake Biesecker , ots-rtf@omg.org In-Reply-To: <38F61B37.44753538@fpk.hp.com> References: <20000412183751.A15981@gemstone.com> <38F5FF51.FECE3995@fpk.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-UIDL: EfR!!lKT!!CQC!!\`$!! Yes, Andrew did assign values to both of these: - TAG_TRANSACTION_POLICY (in the IOR) = 26 - TransactionPolicyType (the POA policy) = 46 These are in an unpublished version of OTS which is equal to the CCM draft less the CCM and PSS changes plus the real values for these tags. This is the version I thought I gave to Jishnu for CORBA 2.4. If there was any doubt previously, now I'm sure I don't like multiple versions of documents. At 03:08 PM 4/13/00 -0400, Jishnu Mukerji wrote: >Andrew, > >Have you assigned any Policy Type Tag for a tag named TransactionPolicyType? If so, what is its >value? If not we need to get a value assigned to it from the OMG standard pool. While we are at it, >we could also change its name to TRANSACTION_POLICY_TYPE, to make it consistent with the naming >convention for such things. > >Please let us know at your earliest convenience. > >Thanks, > >Jishnu. > >Jishnu Mukerji wrote: >> >> Blake Biesecker wrote: >> > >> > Does anyone know which document we should refer to when suggesting >> > changes to chapters 13 and 15 of the spec? Is there anything more >> > current than formal/99-10-07? >> > >> > Blake >> > >> > ----- Forwarded message from Juergen Boldt ----- >> > Subject: issue 3420 -- OTS RTF issue >> > >> > This is issue # 3420 >> > >> > Component tag definition missing >> > >> > Page 35 of ptc/99-10-07 talks about the transaction policies in IORs. >> > This is incomplete, because the relevant tags must be defined in chapters >> > 13 and 15 of the spec, but aren't. >> >> Blake, >> >> A little further digging shows that TransactionPolicyComponentId has been changed to >> TAG_TRANSACTION_POLICY to align with component tag naming convention, and it has been assigned the >> value 26. I am adding that to Chapter 13. I have no idea what happened to the TransactionPolicy >> object and its policy tag. Perhaps you can chase Andrew and Ed and figure out what happened to it. >> >> 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. > > ************************************************************** Ed Cobb, Director, Advanced Technology & Standards BEA Systems, Inc., 2315 North First St., San Jose, CA 95131 Tel: 408-570-8264 / Fax: 408-570-8942 E-mail: ed.cobb@beasys.com ************************************************************** Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:39:18 -0700 From: Blake Biesecker To: Edward Cobb Cc: Jishnu Mukerji , Andrew Watson , ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: [juergen@omg.org: issue 3420 -- OTS RTF issue] Message-ID: <20000413173918.A16353@gemstone.com> References: <20000412183751.A15981@gemstone.com> <38F5FF51.FECE3995@fpk.hp.com> <38F61B37.44753538@fpk.hp.com> <3.0.5.32.20000413161012.00c3d320@svlhome2.beasys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre4i In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20000413161012.00c3d320@svlhome2.beasys.com>; from ed.cobb@bea.com on Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 04:10:12PM -0700 X-Disclaimer: I only speak for myself, unless I expressly indicate otherwise. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: MF#!!RTCe90)7e9<3jd9 Well, I'm confused about how many documents there are and how many versions each have. We need an OTS specification document maintained that includes the Messaging changes and any OTS RTF changes. Does such a document exist? If so, what is it called? If it exists, we need to remove out dated versions of it from the OMG website. If it doesn't exist, we need to create one. Whether we create a new document or use an existing one, this "OTS RTF changes plus messaging" document will be part of the CORBA 2.4 release. We will also need a document that contains everything in the 2.4 draft plus CCM and PSS changes. This document will be part of CORBA 3.0. Hopefully, the above is clear about what is needed. Based on that, we need two OTS specification documents. I suggest that only one person maintain both documents. Now, I have three questions 1) What is the OTS document for CORBA 2.4 called? 2) What is the OTS document for CORBA 3.0 called? 3) Who is in charge of maintaining both these documents? I'm assuming that Ed Cobb is the document keeper. (Ed, please let me know if you don't want this duty. Since you are involved in the CCM and PSS efforts, I think you are the most logical candidate, but if you have time constraints, we can find someone else to do it.) Do we have answers to questions 1 & 2? Blake On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 04:10:12PM -0700, Edward Cobb wrote: > Yes, Andrew did assign values to both of these: > - TAG_TRANSACTION_POLICY (in the IOR) = 26 > - TransactionPolicyType (the POA policy) = 46 > These are in an unpublished version of OTS which is equal to the CCM draft > less the CCM and PSS changes plus the real values for these tags. This is > the version I thought I gave to Jishnu for CORBA 2.4. > If there was any doubt previously, now I'm sure I don't like multiple > versions of documents. > > At 03:08 PM 4/13/00 -0400, Jishnu Mukerji wrote: > >Andrew, > > > >Have you assigned any Policy Type Tag for a tag named > TransactionPolicyType? If so, what is its > >value? If not we need to get a value assigned to it from the OMG standard > pool. While we are at it, > >we could also change its name to TRANSACTION_POLICY_TYPE, to make it > consistent with the naming > >convention for such things. > > > >Please let us know at your earliest convenience. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Jishnu. > > > >Jishnu Mukerji wrote: > >> > >> Blake Biesecker wrote: > >> > > >> > Does anyone know which document we should refer to when suggesting > >> > changes to chapters 13 and 15 of the spec? Is there anything more > >> > current than formal/99-10-07? > >> > > >> > Blake > >> > > >> > ----- Forwarded message from Juergen Boldt ----- > >> > Subject: issue 3420 -- OTS RTF issue > >> > > >> > This is issue # 3420 > >> > > >> > Component tag definition missing > >> > > >> > Page 35 of ptc/99-10-07 talks about the transaction policies in IORs. > >> > This is incomplete, because the relevant tags must be defined in chapters > >> > 13 and 15 of the spec, but aren't. > >> > >> Blake, > >> > >> A little further digging shows that TransactionPolicyComponentId has > been changed to > >> TAG_TRANSACTION_POLICY to align with component tag naming convention, > and it has been assigned the > >> value 26. I am adding that to Chapter 13. I have no idea what happened > to the TransactionPolicy > >> object and its policy tag. Perhaps you can chase Andrew and Ed and > figure out what happened to it. > >> > >> 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. > > > > > ************************************************************** > Ed Cobb, Director, Advanced Technology & Standards > BEA Systems, Inc., 2315 North First St., San Jose, CA 95131 > Tel: 408-570-8264 / Fax: 408-570-8942 > E-mail: ed.cobb@beasys.com > ************************************************************** X-Sender: andrew@emerald.omg.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20000413161012.00c3d320@svlhome2.beasys.com> References: <38F61B37.44753538@fpk.hp.com> <20000412183751.A15981@gemstone.com> <38F5FF51.FECE3995@fpk.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:57:06 -0400 To: Edward Cobb From: Andrew Watson Subject: Re: [juergen@omg.org: issue 3420 -- OTS RTF issue] Cc: Jishnu Mukerji , Blake Biesecker , ots-rtf@omg.org, Juergen Boldt Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-UIDL: #Ifd9p?;!!>Z,!!NXZd9 Ed, You wrote: > Yes, Andrew did assign values to both of these: > - TAG_TRANSACTION_POLICY (in the IOR) = 26 > - TransactionPolicyType (the POA policy) = 46 > These are in an unpublished version of OTS which is equal to the CCM draft > less the CCM and PSS changes plus the real values for these tags. This is > the version I thought I gave to Jishnu for CORBA 2.4. To make it easier to check the latest version of the standard tags file, I've added a new special URL to the Web site: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?standard-tags This will always take you to the most recent list of standard CORBA tags that I've allocated, regardless of whether they appear in published documents, unpublished documents, or no documents at all. At the moment this document is omg/00-04-01.txt. To try to maintain some consistency, I've added a new link for the vendor tags document. In addition to existing routes to it, this URL gets you to the latest vendor tag allocation document: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?vendor-tags In contrast to the standard tags document, which I re-publish immediately any time anything changes, this one is re-published about once a month, with all the accumulated changes for that month. At the moment it's ptc/00-04-01.txt. Cheers, Andrew