Issue 656: Chapter 4.3.3.2, Comments on Dynamic Any (port-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Severity: Summary: Summary: Aliases are not dealt with at all in this chapter and some form of TypeCode equivalence is implied ut never defined. How about bound and a unbound string. Typecode equivalence needs to be defin Resolution: Fixed in Rev 2.3 with the TypeCode equivalence fixes. Revised Text: Actions taken: August 7, 1997: received issue February 22, 1999: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Return-Path: Date: 07 Aug 97 16:35:32 -0700 From: "JSPIRN.US.ORACLE.COM" To: issues@omg.org, port-rtf@omg.org Subject: Comments on DynAny for Portability RFP Cc: JTREZZO@us.oracle.com, DBROWER@us.oracle.com, KCOLEMAN@us.oracle.com The following issues concern the "Dynamic Any" in the portablility RFP submission. They were prepared by Kim Coleman of Oracle; I am forwarding them on in my capacity as a member of the portability RTF. Thanks, Jeff Spirn ================================= Date: 07 Aug 97 10:13:34 From:"KCOLEMAN.US.ORACLE.COM" To:jspirn Subject:Comments on DynAny for Portability Spec Cc:dbrower,tplambec,hspintzi,dlowe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding:7bit Content-Type:text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Comments on Chapter 4 (DynAny) of orbos/97-04-14 (Portability spec) 4.3.3.2 ------- Aliases are not dealt with at all in this chapter and some form of TypeCode equivalence is implied but never defined. For example, in the discussion of DynAny::assign, "If an invalid DynAny object is passed (it has a different typecode or ...) the Invalid exception is raised." What does it mean to have "different" typecode? If one is an alias and the other is not, are they "different"? (I hope not). Similarly, if both typecodes represent an object reference type, but for two different interfaces (rep id's are different), are they the same? Presumably so, but the language is rather open to interpretation. How about a bound and an unbound string? Typecode equivalence needs to be defined somewhere.