Issue 3903: mapping for Request.target will not compile (java-rtf) Source: Oracle (Dr. Harold Carr, Ph.D., nobody) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: This is a IDL to Java issue. ptc/00-01-08 specifies the mapping for Request. The mapping of target is specified on p 69 as: public abstract Object target(); It should say: public abstract org.omg.CORBA.Object target(); Otherwise it will not compile. Resolution: closed issue, editorial change Revised Text: Actions taken: September 20, 2000: received issue April 17, 2001: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 17:04:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Ken Cavanaugh Reply-To: Ken Cavanaugh Subject: Issues with Java mapping of Typecode To: issues@omg.org Cc: Ken.Cavanaugh@eng.sun.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-MD5: CVW/piIpusoMF1ZOoiI9Tg== X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.3.4p_5 SunOS 5.7 sun4u sparc Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: UR#!!BU[d9N%hd9GN0!! In the IDL to Java spec (ptc/00-01-08) there are several minor editorial errors in the Java mapping for Typecode: 1. p. 74 the example has class TypeCode extends IDLEntity However, IDLEntity is an interface, so this must be implements, not extends. 2. p. 75 the declaration public abstract short member_visibility( long index ) should be public abstract short member_visibility( int index ) since the IDL for member_visibility has a long argument, and IDL long type maps to int in Java. 3. Throughout class Typecode on pp. 74-75, TypeCodePackage.BadKind and TypeCodePackage.Bounds are illegal java. The exception names must either be fully qualified or unqualified with appropriate import statements. Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:31:41 -0400 From: Mary Leland X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Java RTF , Andrew Watson , Juergen Boldt Subject: Issues 2823, 3801, and 3819 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: UAjd94:4e97G~!!+$%"! IDL to Java RTF Members, Andrew, & Juergen, I believe that these issues (appended below) are all editorial: the source code zip file has the correct code, and the chapter states that the source code zip file is "the authoritative statement of the specification because it contains the actual Java code." If no one objects, I'll ask Juergen to mark these as "Closed, Editorial," and I will make the necessary changes in the Mapping Chapter. Thanks, Mary ----------------------------------------------------- Issue 2823: Java mapping for PolicyType... formal-99-07-53 (IDL to Java Language Mapping Specification) has the following method signature in ORB (page 1-83): public Policy create_policy(short policy_type, Any val) throws org.omg.CORBA.PolicyError whereas formal-98-12-01 (CORBA) has PolicyType defined as (page 4-20): typedef unsigned long PolicyType; Thus, shouldn't the Java mapping be?: public Policy create_policy(int policy_type, Any val) throws org.omg.CORBA.PolicyError ----------------------------------------------------- Issue 3801: policy_type should map to a Java int. policy_type should map to a Java int. It appears that there's an error in the OMG specification ptc/00-01-08 OMG IDL to Java Language Mapping. In the mapping for ORB as given in the org.omg.CORBA.ORB in section 1.19.10, the IDL signature Policy create_policy( in PolicyType type, in any val ) raises (PolicyError); has been mapped to public Policy create_policy(short policy_type, Any val) throws org.omg.CORBA.PolicyError However, note that in formal/99-10-07, as in elsewhere, it's clearly stated that PolicyType is unsigned long 4.9.1 Definition of Policy Object typedef unsigned long PolicyType; // Basic IDL definition interface Policy { readonly attribute PolicyType policy_type; Policy copy(); void destroy(); }; and that the Java mapping for unsigned long is an "int" not a "short," as erroneously implied in 1.19.10 of ptc/00-01-08. I believe this is an error in the ptc/00-01-08 OMG IDL to Java Language Mapping that needs to be cleared. ----------------------------------------------------- Issue 3819: Issues with Java mapping of Typecode In the IDL to Java spec (ptc/00-01-08) there are several minor editorial errors in the Java mapping for Typecode: 1. p. 74 the example has class TypeCode extends IDLEntity However, IDLEntity is an interface, so this must be implements, not extends. 2. p. 75 the declaration public abstract short member_visibility( long index ) should be public abstract short member_visibility( int index ) since the IDL for member_visibility has a long argument, and IDL long type maps to int in Java. 3. Throughout class Typecode on pp. 74-75, TypeCodePackage.BadKind and TypeCodePackage.Bounds are illegal java. The exception names must either be fully qualified or unqualified with appropriate import statements.