Issue 3542: Section 6.5 "Type Specific ReplyHandler Mapping (formerly issue 2534) (messaging-rtf)
Source: Perot Systems (Mr. Charles W. Binko, nobody)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary: Section 6.5 "Type Specific ReplyHandler Mapping" does not specify whether the AMI generated interfaces should mirror the inheritence tree of their source interfaces: Example: module A { interface one { void f(); }; interface two : one { void g(); }; }; In this scenario, should the implied AMI_twoHandler interface extend AMI_oneHandler, or should it just contain callbacks for all of the methods defined in 'two' including those inheritted from 'one'?
Resolution: Already fixed. Close no change
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
March 10, 1999: received issue
October 3, 2001: closed issue
Discussion: 


End of Annotations:=====
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:41:06 -0500
From: Jishnu Mukerji <jishnu_mukerji@hp.com>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard EIAL, Florham Park NJ USA
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: orb_revision@omg.org
Subject: Issue 3542 proposed resolution
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-UIDL: o=A!!NV+!!WX`!!O4dd9

Issue 3542: Section 6.5 "Type Specific ReplyHandler Mapping (formerly
issue 2534) (messaging-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Technical Resource Connection (Mr. Charles W. Binko,
bill.binko@trcinc.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary: Section 6.5 "Type Specific ReplyHandler Mapping" does not
specify whether the AMI generated interfaces should mirror the
inheritence tree of their source 
interfaces: Example: module A { interface one { void f(); }; interface
two : one { void g(); }; }; In this scenario, should the implied
AMI_twoHandler interface extend 
AMI_oneHandler, or should it just contain callbacks for all of the
methods defined in 'two' including those inheritted from 'one'?
Resolution: Per the chair of the now deefunct Messaging RTF Chris
Smith
"This issue has already been dealt with but it has come back with a
new
number due to OMG 
losing some issues." So propose close no change.
Revised Text:
Actions taken: Already fixed. Close no change

_____________________________________________________________________

Unless there is signficant objection, this resolution will appear in
the
next Core vote.

Thanks,

Jishnu.