Issue 3935: IOP_N (interceptors-rtf) Source: Oracle (Dr. Harold Carr, Ph.D., nobody) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: All pages of ptc/00-08-06 reference Codec and CodecFactory as being in module IOP - EXCEPT section 21.10 (the consolidated IDL). There is says IOP_N. At one time IOP_N was a placeholder until the exact version of module IOP was determined. Was a determination made that IOP was the proper module/version? Resolution: Incorporate change and close issue Revised Text: Replace IOP_N with IOP in ptc/01-03-04 section 21.10 Actions taken: October 3, 2000: received issue April 26, 2010: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:15:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200010041415.HAA09578@shorter.eng.sun.com> From: Harold Carr To: interceptors-rtf@omg.org Subject: IOP_N Content-Type: text X-UIDL: #8Zd9MR0!!]T,e9d0L!! Question: All pages of ptc/00-08-06 reference Codec and CodecFactory as being in module IOP - EXCEPT section 21.10 (the consolidated IDL). There is says IOP_N. At one time IOP_N was a placeholder until the exact version of module IOP was determined. Was a determination made that IOP was the proper module/version? THanks, Harold Reply-To: From: "Nick Sharman" To: "Juergen Boldt" , , Subject: RE: issue 3935 -- Interceptors RTF issue Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:24:59 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20001004114522.00c8ec70@emerald.omg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: ^Nc!!h7:!!@R_!!_nZ!! > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 4:46 PM > To: issues@emerald.omg.org; interceptors-rtf@emerald.omg.org > Subject: issue 3935 -- Interceptors RTF issue > > > This is issue # 3935 Harold Carr > > IOP_N > > All pages of ptc/00-08-06 reference Codec and CodecFactory as being in > module IOP - EXCEPT section 21.10 (the consolidated IDL). There is > says IOP_N. At one time IOP_N was a placeholder until the exact > version of module IOP was determined. Was a determination made that > IOP was the proper module/version? Proposal: In ptc/00-08-06, replace all references to 'IOP_N' by 'IOP' Discussion: I can't recall any decision about IOP_N/IOP, but using plain IOP seems harmless (the changes are purely additive, and modules are expected to be re-openable) and has the benefit of simplicity. Other TFs have done the same, for example, GIOP/IIOP 1.1 & 1.2 have both added stuff into GIOP & IIOP (and even renamed some of the existing types, which perhaps _wasn't_ so friendly!). Regards Nick Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 07:06:41 -0700 From: Harold Carr X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nick.sharman@cp.net CC: Juergen Boldt , issues@emerald.omg.org, interceptors-rtf@emerald.omg.org Subject: Re: issue 3935 -- Interceptors RTF issue References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: k&$e9YL:!!I5`d9M:-e9 IOP sounds fine with me. Question, since CP, OOC, IONA and SUN went on record in front of the AB as having implemented PI, in which module did you put Codec and its factory? SUN has it temporarily (in unreleased code) in IOP_N. Looking forward to responses from OOC and IONA (and anyone else who have implemented it). Thanks, Harold Nick Sharman wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 4:46 PM > > To: issues@emerald.omg.org; interceptors-rtf@emerald.omg.org > > Subject: issue 3935 -- Interceptors RTF issue > > > > > > This is issue # 3935 Harold Carr > > > > IOP_N > > > > All pages of ptc/00-08-06 reference Codec and CodecFactory as being in > > module IOP - EXCEPT section 21.10 (the consolidated IDL). There is > > says IOP_N. At one time IOP_N was a placeholder until the exact > > version of module IOP was determined. Was a determination made that > > IOP was the proper module/version? > > Proposal: In ptc/00-08-06, replace all references to 'IOP_N' by 'IOP' > > Discussion: > > I can't recall any decision about IOP_N/IOP, but using plain IOP seems > harmless (the changes are purely additive, and modules are expected to be > re-openable) and has the benefit of simplicity. > > Other TFs have done the same, for example, GIOP/IIOP 1.1 & 1.2 have both > added stuff into GIOP & IIOP (and even renamed some of the existing types, > which perhaps _wasn't_ so friendly!). > > Regards > Nick Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:17:15 -0230 From: Matthew Newhook To: Harold Carr Cc: nick.sharman@cp.net, Juergen Boldt , issues@emerald.omg.org, interceptors-rtf@emerald.omg.org Subject: Re: issue 3935 -- Interceptors RTF issue Message-ID: <20001005121715.A7436@ooc.com> References: <39DC8AF1.4B8E9C38@sun.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <39DC8AF1.4B8E9C38@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: g?Ld9haF!!H3)e989ad9 Hi, On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 07:06:41AM -0700, Harold Carr wrote: > IOP sounds fine with me. > > Question, since CP, OOC, IONA and SUN went on record in front of the AB > as having implemented PI, in which module did you put Codec and its > factory? SUN has it temporarily (in unreleased code) in IOP_N. > > Looking forward to responses from OOC and IONA (and anyone else who have > implemented it). We put this stuff in module IOP. > Thanks, > Harold Matthew -- Matthew Newhook E-Mail: mailto:matthew@ooc.com Software Designer WWW: http://www.ooc.com Object Oriented Concepts, Inc. Phone: (709) 738-3725 Reply-To: From: "Nick Sharman" To: "Harold Carr" Cc: "Juergen Boldt" , , Subject: RE: issue 3935 -- Interceptors RTF issue Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:12:56 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <39DC8AF1.4B8E9C38@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: 4ZA!!'Uf!!82-!!b7He9 > -----Original Message----- > From: Harold Carr [mailto:harold.carr@sun.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:07 PM > To: nick.sharman@cp.net > Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@emerald.omg.org; > interceptors-rtf@emerald.omg.org > Subject: Re: issue 3935 -- Interceptors RTF issue > > > IOP sounds fine with me. > > Question, since CP, OOC, IONA and SUN went on record in front of the AB > as having implemented PI, in which module did you put Codec and its > factory? SUN has it temporarily (in unreleased code) in IOP_N. > > Looking forward to responses from OOC and IONA (and anyone else who have > implemented it). > > Thanks, > Harold We used IOP - I should have said so earlier. Regards Nick Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 13:51:50 -0400 From: Bob Kukura Organization: IONA Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nick.sharman@cp.net CC: Harold Carr , interceptors-rtf@emerald.omg.org Subject: Re: issue 3935 -- Interceptors RTF issue References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: 6BMe9:d3e9i!%e9(G8e9 We also use IOP. -Bob Nick Sharman wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Harold Carr [mailto:harold.carr@sun.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:07 PM > > To: nick.sharman@cp.net > > Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@emerald.omg.org; > > interceptors-rtf@emerald.omg.org > > Subject: Re: issue 3935 -- Interceptors RTF issue > > > > > > IOP sounds fine with me. > > > > Question, since CP, OOC, IONA and SUN went on record in front of the AB > > as having implemented PI, in which module did you put Codec and its > > factory? SUN has it temporarily (in unreleased code) in IOP_N. > > > > Looking forward to responses from OOC and IONA (and anyone else who have > > implemented it). > > > > Thanks, > > Harold > > We used IOP - I should have said so earlier. > > Regards > Nick Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 11:49:58 -0700 From: Harold Carr X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nick.sharman@cp.net CC: Juergen Boldt , issues@emerald.omg.org, interceptors-rtf@emerald.omg.org Subject: Re: issue 3935 -- Interceptors RTF issue References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: $jk!!+Eod96%9!!oINe9 Perhaps we can just handle this editorially. All of ptc/00-08-06 except chapter 21 already has it as IOP. Harold Nick Sharman wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Harold Carr [mailto:harold.carr@sun.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:07 PM > > To: nick.sharman@cp.net > > Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@emerald.omg.org; > > interceptors-rtf@emerald.omg.org > > Subject: Re: issue 3935 -- Interceptors RTF issue > > > > > > IOP sounds fine with me. > > > > Question, since CP, OOC, IONA and SUN went on record in front of the AB > > as having implemented PI, in which module did you put Codec and its > > factory? SUN has it temporarily (in unreleased code) in IOP_N. > > > > Looking forward to responses from OOC and IONA (and anyone else who have > > implemented it). > > > > Thanks, > > Harold > > We used IOP - I should have said so earlier. > > Regards > Nick