Issue 5519: 69.3.2.14 The idl Element, page 69-478 (components-ftf) Source: Raytheon (Mr. Gerald Lee Bickle, Gerald.L.Bickle(at)raytheon.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: a) Add idl element to implementation element. Why is idl only at the softpkg level? This is saying that all implementations use the same IDL. This is inconsistent with descriptor element. An implementation can specify a descriptor, why not idl? Cannot an implementation use a specific IDL for its implementation? b) Why is IDL defined in the software package descriptor instead of the CORBA Component descriptor? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: July 17, 2002: received issue Discussion: Resolution: None as this is deferred to the final report of the Components 1.1 RTF. Revised Text: None as this is deferred to the final report of the Components 1.1 RTF End of Annotations:===== From: Gerald_L_Bickle@RAYTHEON.COM Subject: CCM Softpkg DTD Extensions & Changes To: issues@omg.org, components-rtf@omg.org Cc: "Mike McClimens" , "Smith, Jeff" , Edwin.Wrench@ITT.COM, mike.mcclimens@saalt.army.mil, "Mike McClimens" , David Fitkin , jeffrey.olynick@baesystems.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 12:57:08 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NotesServer3/HDC(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 07/17/2002 12:57:09 PM X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by emerald.omg.org id g6HHsWC06347 Document ptc/2001-11-03, CORBA Component Model 6. 69.3.2.14 The idl Element, page 69-478 a) Add idl element to implementation element. Why is idl only at the softpkg level? This is saying that all implementations use the same IDL. This is inconsistent with descriptor element. An implementation can specify a descriptor, why not idl? Cannot an implementation use a specific IDL for its implementation? b) Why is IDL defined in the software package descriptor instead of the CORBA Component descriptor?