Issue 4350: Ambiguous "SUCCESS" message in RT-CORBA priority bands (rt-corba-ftf) Source: University of California, Irvine (Mr. Carlos O'Ryan, nobody) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The RT-CORBA specification, even after the FTF modifications (pt/00-09-02) reads: ----------------------------- 4.12.2 Binding of Priority Banded Connection [6th paragraph] .... Having done this the ORB shall send a "SUCCESS" Reply message. If the..... ----------------------------- No definition for what form this SUCCESS reply should take. One should assume that it is a regular GIOP Reply message, with the reply_status set to NO_EXCEPTION. The spec is at least misleading, should the string "SUCCESS" be returned? Or should a boolean value of "SUCCESS" be returned? Or just returning an empty reply is enough? Suggested fixes: 1) Define the _bind_priority_band() [pseudo?-]operation using IDL, that would at least clarify the contents of all messages, something like the following: module CORBA { // PIDL interface Object { ... .. void _bind_priority_band (); }; 2) Change the paragraph to read: When a Real-Time-ORB receives a _bind_priority_band Request it should allocate resources to the connection and configure those resources appropriately to the priority band indicated in the ServiceContext. Having done this the ORB shall send a GIOP Reply message with the reply_status field set to NO_EXCEPTION. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: June 18, 2001: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== X-Authentication-Warning: doc.ece.uci.edu: Host doc.ece.uci.edu [128.195.174.34] claimed to be glamdring Message-ID: <005901c0f87a$907eedf0$2daec380@glamdring> From: "Carlos O'Ryan" To: Subject: Ambiguous "SUCCESS" message in RT-CORBA priority bands Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:30:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: HC%!!;~Q!!%A"!!&<`!! Hi, The RT-CORBA specification, even after the FTF modifications (pt/00-09-02) reads: ----------------------------- 4.12.2 Binding of Priority Banded Connection [6th paragraph] .... Having done this the ORB shall send a "SUCCESS" Reply message. If the..... ----------------------------- No definition for what form this SUCCESS reply should take. One should assume that it is a regular GIOP Reply message, with the reply_status set to NO_EXCEPTION. The spec is at least misleading, should the string "SUCCESS" be returned? Or should a boolean value of "SUCCESS" be returned? Or just returning an empty reply is enough? Suggested fixes: 1) Define the _bind_priority_band() [pseudo?-]operation using IDL, that would at least clarify the contents of all messages, something like the following: module CORBA { // PIDL interface Object { ... .. void _bind_priority_band (); }; 2) Change the paragraph to read: When a Real-Time-ORB receives a _bind_priority_band Request it should allocate resources to the connection and configure those resources appropriately to the priority band indicated in the ServiceContext. Having done this the ORB shall send a GIOP Reply message with the reply_status field set to NO_EXCEPTION. -- Carlos O'Ryan (coryan@uci.edu) #include #include // "Speak softly and carry a megawatt laser" 1024D/46936992 33B3 C4ED AA90 FA0F E8D1 D509 FE5E 8F79 4693 6992 X-Authentication-Warning: emerald.omg.org: hobbit.omg.org [192.67.184.3] didn't use HELO protocol Received: from corvette.floorboard.com (64.121.176.53) by hobbit.omg.org asmtp(1.0) id 22600; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:05:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from floorboard.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corvette.floorboard.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA15982; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:59:21 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jon@corvette.floorboard.com Message-ID: <3B2EDC29.3C6B4390@floorboard.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:59:21 -0700 From: Jonathan Biggar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Carlos O'Ryan" , rt-corba-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Ambiguous "SUCCESS" message in RT-CORBA priority bands References: <005901c0f87a$907eedf0$2daec380@glamdring> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: /F5!!:]c!!)-E!!A":!! Carlos O'Ryan wrote: > No definition for what form this SUCCESS reply should take. One should > assume that it is a regular GIOP Reply message, with the reply_status set to > NO_EXCEPTION. The spec is at least misleading, should the string "SUCCESS" > be returned? Or should a boolean value of "SUCCESS" be returned? Or just > returning an empty reply is enough? ... > Suggested fixes: > > 1) Define the _bind_priority_band() [pseudo?-]operation using IDL, > that > would at least clarify the contents of all messages, something like > the > following: > > module CORBA { > // PIDL > interface Object { > ... > .. > void _bind_priority_band (); > }; I do hope you realize that proposing a new operation on CORBA::Object is tantamount to starting a new crusade, don't you? :) My reading of the RT spec equates the "SUCCESS" message with a NO_EXCEPTION reply to the _bind_priority_band implicit operation. Also, the spec specificially says that it defines no API for bind_priority_band(). I agree, however, that the spec should be much clearer, and I think the best approach is to explicitly state that the _bind_priority_band operation has no arguments and a void return type. -- Jon Biggar Floorboard Software jon@floorboard.com jon@biggar.org