Issue 3858: Package for PortableRemoteObjectDelegate (java2idl-rtf) Source: (Mr. Simon C. Nash, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The Java to IDL mapping spec does not explictly specify the package for the PortableRemoteObjectDelegate interface. The correct fully-qualified name of this interface is javax.rmi.CORBA.PotableRemoteObjectDelegate. This is stated explictly in Harold Carr's final proposal for issue 2478, which contained the text: > The implementation delegate classes for PortableRemoteObject and Util must > implement the following new interfaces: > > javax.rmi.CORBA.PortableRemoteObjectDelegate (per-class delegation) > javax.rmi.CORBA.UtilDelegate (per-class delegation) and is also implied by the text that was voted on for issue 2478, which contained the following: > The implementation delegate classes for PortableRemoteObject and Util must > implement the following new interfaces for per-class delegation: > > package javax.rmi.CORBA; > > public interface UtilDelegate { > > .... > > } > > public interface PortableRemoteObjectDelegate { > > .... > > } The above code clearly makes both interfaces part of the javax.rmi.CORBA package. However, when these definitions were copied into the Java to IDL mapping spec, the interfaces UtilDelegate and PortableRemoteObject were placed in separate sections 1.5.3.2 and 1.5.3.3, and the package statement was copied to section 1.5.3.2 but was unfortunately not copied to 1.5.3.3. This creates an ambiguity in the published spec document, since section 1.5.3.3 does not explicitly specify the package for PortableRemoteObjectDelegate. Proposed resolution: Add the line package javax.rmi.CORBA; to section 1.5.3.3. Resolution: See revised text below Revised Text: Add the line package javax.rmi.CORBA; to section 1.5.3.3. Actions taken: September 5, 2000: received issue May 24, 2001: closed issue Discussion: The Java to IDL mapping spec does not explictly specify the package for the PortableRemoteObjectDelegate interface. The correct fully-qualified name of this interface is javax.rmi.CORBA.PotableRemoteObjectDelegate. This is stated explictly in Harold Carr's final proposal for issue 2478, which contained the text: > The implementation delegate classes for PortableRemoteObject and Util must > implement the following new interfaces: > > javax.rmi.CORBA.PortableRemoteObjectDelegate (per-class delegation) > javax.rmi.CORBA.UtilDelegate (per-class delegation) and is also implied by the text that was voted on for issue 2478, which contained the following: > The implementation delegate classes for PortableRemoteObject and Util must > implement the following new interfaces for per-class delegation: > > package javax.rmi.CORBA; > > public interface UtilDelegate { > > .... > > } > > public interface PortableRemoteObjectDelegate { > > .... > > } The above code clearly makes both interfaces part of the javax.rmi.CORBA package. However, when these definitions were copied into the Java to IDL mapping spec, the interfaces UtilDelegate and PortableRemoteObject were placed in separate sections 1.5.3.2 and 1.5.3.3, and the package statement was copied to section 1.5.3.2 but was unfortunately not copied to 1.5.3.3. This creates an ambiguity in the published spec document, since section 1.5.3.3 does not explicitly specify the package for PortableRemoteObjectDelegate. End of Annotations:===== Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 20:35:00 +0100 From: Simon Nash Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: issues@omg.org CC: java2idl-rtf@omg.org Subject: Package for PortableRemoteObjectDelegate Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: 'aed9I/m!!YZ]d9+44!! The Java to IDL mapping spec does not explictly specify the package for the PortableRemoteObjectDelegate interface. The correct fully-qualified name of this interface is javax.rmi.CORBA.PotableRemoteObjectDelegate. This is stated explictly in Harold Carr's final proposal for issue 2478, which contained the text: > The implementation delegate classes for PortableRemoteObject and Util must > implement the following new interfaces: > > javax.rmi.CORBA.PortableRemoteObjectDelegate (per-class delegation) > javax.rmi.CORBA.UtilDelegate (per-class delegation) and is also implied by the text that was voted on for issue 2478, which contained the following: > The implementation delegate classes for PortableRemoteObject and Util must > implement the following new interfaces for per-class delegation: > > package javax.rmi.CORBA; > > public interface UtilDelegate { > > .... > > } > > public interface PortableRemoteObjectDelegate { > > .... > > } The above code clearly makes both interfaces part of the javax.rmi.CORBA package. However, when these definitions were copied into the Java to IDL mapping spec, the interfaces UtilDelegate and PortableRemoteObject were placed in separate sections 1.5.3.2 and 1.5.3.3, and the package statement was copied to section 1.5.3.2 but was unfortunately not copied to 1.5.3.3. This creates an ambiguity in the published spec document, since section 1.5.3.3 does not explicitly specify the package for PortableRemoteObjectDelegate. Proposed resolution: Add the line package javax.rmi.CORBA; to section 1.5.3.3. Simon -- Simon C Nash, Technology Architect, IBM Java Technology Centre Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999 Hursley, England Internet: nash@hursley.ibm.com Lotus Notes: Simon Nash@ibmgb