Issue 679:  Incorrect mappings for systems exceptions (part A) (comcorba-rtf)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Uncategorized
Severity: 
Summary: Summary: Section 4.1.18.6 Table 4-14: A few of these mappings don"t seem to make sense (i.e. the meaning of the different exceptions in each object system is much different

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
August 25, 1997: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
Return-Path: <dan@visualedge.com>
From: "Daniel M. Foody" <dan@visualedge.com>
To: "'Keith Moore'" <kem@columbo.hpl.hp.com>,
        "comcorba-rtf@omg.org"
	 <comcorba-rtf@omg.org>
Subject: Really old comments
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 12:39:14 -0400

Here is one of my really old (Part A) comments about incorrect
mappings for system exceptions:

Section 4.1.18.6 Table 4-14
        A few of these mappings do not seem to make sense
        (i.e. the meaning of the different exceptions in each
         object system is much different):

                NO_RESPONSE     -->     DISP_E_PARAMNOTFOUND
                BAD_INV_ORDER -->       DISP_E_BADINDEX
                INV_IDENT -->           DISP_E_UNKNOWNNAME
                INV_FLAG -->            DISP_E_PARAMNOTFOUND

        What I propose is the following contents for the
        table instead:
                BAD_OPERATION -->       DISP_E_MEMBERNOTFOUND
                NO_IMPLEMENT -->        DISP_E_UNKNOWNNAME
                DATA_CONVERSION -->     DISP_E_OVERFLOW

--
Dan Foody (dan@visualedge.com)
Chief Architect
Visual Edge Software Ltd.