Issue 598: sec 17.7.1: IDL for interface request doesn"t match C++ mapping (orb_revision) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Severity: Summary: Summary: The IDL for interface Request does not match the C++ mapping. There are a series od add_arg methods in the mapping that should be added to the IDL. Resolution: Language mappings are allowed to have custom mappings for pseudo-interfaces. Revised Text: Close no change in 2.3a Actions taken: July 9, 1997: received issue February 22, 1999: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Return-Path: To: orb_revision@omg.org Subject: testsuite issue Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 16:04:14 +0100 From: Stephen McNamara Section 17.7.1 The IDL for interface Request does not match the C++ mapping. There are a series of add_arg methods in the mapping that should be added to the IDL. stephen Return-Path: X-Sender: vinoski@mail.boston.iona.ie Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:44:03 -0400 To: Jishnu Mukerji From: Steve Vinoski Subject: Re: Issue 598 Cc: Juergen Boldt At 05:46 PM 6/23/98 -0400, Jishnu Mukerji wrote: >> Issue 598: sec 17.7.1: IDL for interface request doesn't match C++ mapping (orb_revision) >> >> Click here for this issue's archive. >> Source: Applied Testing and Technology (Mr. Stephen McNamara, stephen@aptest.ie) >> Nature: Uncategorized >> Severity: >> Summary: The IDL for interface Request does not match the C++ >> mapping. There are a series od >> add_arg methods in the mapping that should be added to the IDL. >> Resolution: The >> Revised Text: >> Actions taken: >> July 9, 1997: received issue > >Please move this issue from ORB Revision list to CXX Revision list. Are you sure you want to do this? What this issue is asking is that the extra methods we added to the C++ mapping for Request be added to the core IDL for Request. If we could do that in the C++ RTF, we would have done it to begin with. :-) --steve Return-Path: Sender: jis@fpk.hp.com Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 10:42:42 -0400 From: Jishnu Mukerji Organization: Hewlett-Packard New Jersey Labs To: Steve Vinoski Cc: Juergen Boldt Subject: Re: Issue 598 References: <199806232251.SAA24688@boston.iona.ie> Steve Vinoski wrote: > > At 05:46 PM 6/23/98 -0400, Jishnu Mukerji wrote: > >> Issue 598: sec 17.7.1: IDL for interface request doesn't match > C++ > mapping (orb_revision) > >> > >> Click here for this issue's archive. > >> Source: Applied Testing and Technology (Mr. Stephen McNamara, > stephen@aptest.ie) > >> Nature: Uncategorized > >> Severity: > >> Summary: The IDL for interface Request does not match the C++ > mapping. > There are a series od > >> add_arg methods in the mapping that should be added to the IDL. > >> Resolution: The > >> Revised Text: > >> Actions taken: > >> July 9, 1997: received issue > > > >Please move this issue from ORB Revision list to CXX Revision list. > > Are you sure you want to do this? What this issue is asking is that > the > extra methods we added to the C++ mapping for Request be added to > the core > IDL for Request. If we could do that in the C++ RTF, we would have > done it > to begin with. :-) > > --steve My reading of it is different. It is saying that the add_arg methods in the C++ class in 20.28.2 are not present in the pseudo-interface declaration of Request that appears in 20.28.1 in the C++ mapping chapter. Of course that IDL declaration of Request in 20.28.1 does not match the pseduo IDL in Chapter 4 or any other equivalent pseudo IDL in any other language mapping chapters either.:-) So I thought we might start by applying the issue to the narrowest scope first and see if it made sense, and then proceed from there.:-) Personally, since the add_arg (add_in_arg, add_inout_arg, add_out_arg) functions are helper functions in the C++ mapping, it is not clear that they should be added to the IDL. There is of course a separate issue that asks for adding Object::_request to the IDL for Object. I need to check with all other language mappings to see that it is actually a commonly felt need before that is added at the ORB level. I think there is a broader issue of determining a policy about when artifacts of language bindings are determined to be common enough to be promoted to the common IDL that appears in the core chapters. Anyway, if you insist that it not be moved, it can stay in Core, but the immediate fix that this issue is asking for is in Chapter 20 in my opinion. Jishnu. -- Jishnu Mukerji Email: jis@fpk.hp.com Hewlett-Packard New Jersey Labs, Tel: +1 973 443 7528 300 Campus Drive, 2E-62, Fax: +1 973 443 7422 Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA.