Issue 4042: New PSS Issue: Private state members (pss-ftf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: In the PSDL grammar of the Persistent State Service, orbos/99-07-07, state members are merely declared. This makes all such members inherently public. What is the rationale behind public-only state members? Since storage objects are almost the same as valuetypes, it seems an obvious extension that any object, persistent or not, might have members that should not be exposed to external objects or even derived types. Could this syntax be changed to more closely resemble valuetypes? (See also issue 3226 on factory declarators and the (currently unnumbered) issues on scoping and grammar complexity.) Resolution: rejected Revised Text: Actions taken: November 14, 2000: received issue May 13, 2002: closed issue Discussion: Concrete storagetypes are already an implementation detail. To avoid exposing such implementation detail -- in particular avoid the exposition of "private" data members, just use an abstract storagetype. Abstract storagetypes are unlike abstract valuetypes: they can contain (abstract) state definitions. End of Annotations:===== From: thomas.s.hawker@mail.sprint.com X-OpenMail-Hops: 1 Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 14:51:51 -0600 Message-Id: Subject: New PSS Issue: Private state members MIME-Version: 1.0 TO: issues@omg.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="openmail-part-34fcb956-00000001" X-UIDL: