Issue 5650: total separation of the DP<_Implied_IDL> and PB (dataparallel-ftf) Source: Mercury Computer Systems (Mr. James E. Kulp, nobody) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The author of a parallel object implementation writes the implementation of part objects and specifies their ParallelBehavior. // I don't know if I'm sounding right, but there seems to be a total separation of the DP<_Implied_IDL> and PB. Is this intentional? Can a PB have ParallelOperations from multiple Parallel Objects (The part implementor may not do such a thing but from the spec it appears legal to do this). Won't that 'destroy' the implied semantics between a parallel object and it's parts? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: September 26, 2002: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== X-Dreamscape-Track-Mars-A: 208-59-176-137.c3-0.arl-ubr1.sbo-arl.ma.cable.rcn.com [208.59.176.137] X-Dreamscape-Track-Mars-B: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:08:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:09:12 -0400 From: Jim Kulp X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en To: Juergen Boldt Subject: DP CORBA issues Several (8) issues have been communicated to me directly from non-OMG people for DP CORBA, and I wanted to get them into the system: Issue 4: ---------- The author of a parallel object implementation writes the implementation of part objects and specifies their ParallelBehavior. // I don't know if I'm sounding right, but there seems to be a total separation of the DP<_Implied_IDL> and PB. Is this intentional? Can a PB have ParallelOperations from multiple Parallel Objects (The part implementor may not do such a thing but from the spec it appears legal to do this). Won't that 'destroy' the implied semantics between a parallel object and it's parts?