Issue 549: Type eqivalence problems in trader (zz-trader) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Severity: Summary: Summary: Trader specification problem...The type equivalence is never defined. Both the core and the trader spec should be amended to spell out the intended interpretation Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: April 22, 1997: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Return-Path: X-Authentication-Warning: foxtail.dstc.edu.au: michi owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 15:44:14 +1000 (EST) From: Michi Henning cc: trader-tech@dstc.edu.au, trader-wg@dstc.edu.au Subject: Type equivalence problems in trader Errors-To: owner-issues Sender: owner-issues X-OMG: issues To: issues I just hit a glitch in the trader specification. >From the text for the export operation: "If the type of any of the property values is not the same as the declared type (declared in the service type) then a PropertyTypeMismatch exception is raised." The problem is that type equivalence is never defined. Consider the following IDL: typedef sequence strseq; typedef strseq strseq_t; typedef sequence string_sequence; If I create a service type containing a property type of _tc_strseq, is it legal to export a property value of type _tc_strseq_t? Similarly, is it legal to export a value of type _tc_string_sequence? It is not clear whether structural or name equivalence is to be used for type comparisons, and what should be done with aliases. Looking at the TypeCode spec, the same problem arises: "The equal operation can be invoked on any TypeCode. Equal TypeCodes are interchangeable, and give identical results when TypeCode operations are applied to them." It is not clear what this means, although from context, it looks like name equivalence to me (anyone care to comment?) Both the core and the trader spec should be amended to spell out the intended interpretation. Cheers, Michi. -- Michi Henning +61 7 33654310 DSTC Pty Ltd +61 7 33654311 (fax) University of Qld 4072 michi@dstc.edu.au AUSTRALIA http://www.dstc.edu.au/BDU/staff/michi-henning.html Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:57:02 +1000 (EST) From: Michi Henning To: Juergen Boldt cc: issues@emerald.omg.org Subject: Re: Lost issues In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20010320104951.00a86ca0@emerald.omg.org> Message-ID: Organization: Object Oriented Concepts - An IONA Company MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: :BJe9a1K!!,[8e9=SL!! On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Juergen Boldt wrote: > Hello all, > > URL http://cgi.omg.org/issues/issues.html > contains links to issues which have not been assigned to R/FTFs > because of > a couple of reasons: > ..to name a few... > a) The RTF/FTF has expired and should be re-chartered > b) The RTF/FTF has expired and will never be re-chartered again > (several > reasons why are possible) > c) I just didn't know what RTF/FTF would be responsible for an issue > submitted.. > d) There appear to be no RTFs for most of the CORBAservices > e) Nobody knew about this issues archive > > With your help some of those issues could be resolved (by assigning > some of > those issues to active RTFs/FTFs or by rechartering some of the > expired > RTFs...) Here are some proposals: Issue 184: Close no change. I don't understand the question Issue 468: Close. The issue is empty. Issue 493: Close no change. It doesn't because the submitters decided that it wouldn't. Issue 498: From what I can recall, this refers to name equivalence in the Naming Service. INS has cleaned this, so close it. Issue 961: Move to http://cgi.omg.org/issues/event-rtf.html Issue 2347: Close. This was fixed by INS. Issue 2972: Move to http::/cgi.omg.org/issues/relationship-rtf.html Issue 3003: Close. Issue 3271: Close no change. Historically, iterators in the various specs are a total mess, and all of them, without exception, get it wrong :-( I'm afraid we have to live with the resulting inconsistencies. Issue 4216: Should probably be reassigned to Core RTF? Issues 284, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 4225: We need a trader RTF for those. The remaining open issues also will require formation of RTFs. Cheers, Michi. -- Michi Henning +61 7 3324 9633 Object Oriented Concepts - An IONA Company +61 4 1118 2700 (mobile) Suite 4, 8 Martha St +61 7 3324 9799 (fax) Camp Hill 4152 michi.henning@iona.com Brisbane, AUSTRALIA http://www.ooc.com.au/staff/michi