Issue 562: list_offers is under-specified (zz-trader) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Severity: Summary: Summary: I would suggest to ammend spec to require a value of nil for id_itr for both cases shown in the archive of this issue. This was intended in spec. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: April 28, 1997: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Return-Path: X-Authentication-Warning: foxtail.dstc.edu.au: michi owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 13:32:44 +1000 (EST) From: Michi Henning cc: trader-tech@foxtail.dstc.edu.au, trader-wg@foxtail.dstc.edu.au Subject: list_offers is under-specified Errors-To: owner-issues Sender: owner-issues X-OMG: issues To: issues The spec for CosTrading::Admin::list_offers() says: The "how_many" parameter states how many identifiers are to be returned via the ids result; any remaining are available via the iterator interface. If the "how_many" exceeds to the number of offers held in the trader then the "id_itr" is nil. This has two problems: - It does not say what the value of id_itr should be if how_many is *less than* the number of available offers. - It does not say what the value of id_itr should be if how_many is *equal to* the number of available offers. I would suggest to amend the spec to require a value of nil for id_itr for both these cases. This is clearly what was intended. However, as it stands, the spec permits a compliant implementation to return a non-nil reference to an empty iterator. 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