Issue 5537: The IDL for SpecifiedTraits seems incorrect (pids-rtf2) Source: LuoSys, Inc. (Mr. Christopher White, ) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: The IDL for SpecifiedTraits seems incorrect. There is not definition for elements of this union for ALL_TRAITS and NO_TRAITS so these values can not be used. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: July 23, 2002: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 23 Jul 2002 10:55:13 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Chris White Company: Care Data Systems mailFrom: cwhite@caredatasystems.com Notification: Yes Specification: Person Identification Service (PIDS) Section: 2.2 FormalNumber: 01-04-04 Version: 1.1 RevisionDate: 4/4/01 Page: 2-5 Nature: Revision Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0) Description The IDL for SpecifiedTraits seems incorrect. There is not definition for elements of this union for ALL_TRAITS and NO_TRAITS so these values can not be used. X-Sender: u076663@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:36:08 -0600 To: Juergen Boldt , pids-rtf2@omg.org, issues@omg.org From: David Forslund Subject: Re: issue 5537 -- PIDS RTF issue (to be chartered?) Cc: cwhite@caredatasystems.com This is certainly missing from the IDL. It appears that NO_TRAITS is the default so that it actually handles NO_TRAITS by default. This should be fixed. I think there was some uncertainty at the time as to what to do with the other cases, and this was never resolved. Dave At 02:01 PM 7/24/2002 -0400, Juergen Boldt wrote: This is issue # 5537 Name: Chris White Company: Care Data Systems mailFrom: cwhite@caredatasystems.com The IDL for SpecifiedTraits seems incorrect The IDL for SpecifiedTraits seems incorrect. There is not definition for elements of this union for ALL_TRAITS and NO_TRAITS so these values can not be used. ================================= Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 250 First Avenue, Suite 201 Needham, MA 02494 Tel. +1 781 444 0404 ext. 132 Fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www www.omg.org ================================ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:02:59 -0700 From: Tim Brinson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: Juergen Boldt Subject: [Fwd: issue 5537 -- PIDS RTF issue (to be chartered?)] Juergen, Please forward this to the issues list and PIDS RTF list. I am on neither so it bounced when I sent it. Thanks, Tim Return-Path: Received: from johnson.mail.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.177]) by walker.mail.mindspring.net (Earthlink Mail Service) with ESMTP id 17xu9gv1Z3Nl3s70 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:58:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from augustus-z.mspring.net ([207.69.231.21] helo=augustus) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17XU9G-0003ll-00 for tbrinson@mindspring.com; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:58:22 -0400 X-MindSpring-Loop: tbrinson@2ab.com Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com ([204.127.202.62]) by augustus (Earthlink Mail Service) with ESMTP id uju8nu.8r8.37kbpol for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:58:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 2ab.com ([12.224.146.48]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020724215821.SEPF1451.sccrmhc02.attbi.com@2ab.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:58:21 +0000 Message-ID: <3D3F2121.B1618947@2ab.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:50:25 -0700 From: Tim Brinson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Juergen Boldt CC: pids-rtf2@omg.org, issues@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 5537 -- PIDS RTF issue (to be chartered?) References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020724135951.00c233a0@emerald.omg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 I presume this issue was brought up due to a problem that showed up in using Java. This is a known problem with the IDL to Java mapping. I far as I know the IDL to Java RTF ever addressed this issue. Perhaps the PIDS RTF should unless you can get the IDL to Java RTF to. I had entered an issue for the IDL to Java RTF years ago. At that time I saw no discussion or attempt to address it. I brought it back up months later and it took many emails before convincing anyone there was a problem. However I never saw any more action on it and I stopped following the issue. The CORBA standard discussed the meaning and value of a union where no case statement is provided for a discriminator. In CORBA 2.6 (formal/01-12-01.pdf) section 3.10.2.2 describes the semantics of unions. It reads: "... It is not required that all possible values of the union discriminator be listed in the . The value of a union is the value of the discriminator together with one of the following: value of the element associated with that case statement; with the default case label; The values of the constant expressions for the case labels of a single union definition must be distinct. A union type can contain a default label only where the values given in the non-default labels do not cover the entire range of the union's discriminant type. Access to the discriminator and the related element is language-mapping dependent. ..." Section 15.3.2.3 describes teh CDR for unions in GIOP. It reads: "Unions are encoded as the discriminant tag of the type specified in the union declaration, followed by the representation of any selected member, encoded as its type indicates." However the IDL to Java mapping (formal/01-01-06.pdf) section 1.9 describes the mapping for union. It reads: "An IDL union is mapped to a final Java class with the same name, which implements IDLEntity and has: present. ..." This is lacking a way to set the discriminator only. So in effect the union defined in the PIDS specification is valid but in Java there is no standard way to create one. Individuals may be able to work around this by playing with the stubs created by the IDL to Java compiler. I don't know if any ORBs provide their own proprietary way to do this. Perhaps Juergen would know how to find the issue I had submitted and find the current status. BTW, the Trader spec has a SpecifiedProps union with the exact same issue. That is where we got the idea for PIDS. Sometimes it doesn't pay to copy someone else's work ;-) Regards, Tim Brinson Juergen Boldt wrote: > This is issue # 5537 Name: Chris White Company: Care Data Systems > mailFrom: cwhite@caredatasystems.com > > The IDL for SpecifiedTraits seems incorrect > > The IDL for SpecifiedTraits seems incorrect. There is not definition > for > elements of this union for ALL_TRAITS and NO_TRAITS so these values > can not > be used. > > ================================= > Juergen Boldt > Director, Member Services > > Object Management Group > 250 First Avenue, Suite 201 > Needham, MA 02494 > > Tel. +1 781 444 0404 ext. 132 > Fax: +1 781 444 0320 > email: juergen@omg.org > www www.omg.org > > ===============================