Issue 9159: Clarify the Extents concept in the mapping                                                                                                                                                              (mof2idl-ftf)
Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS (Mr. Michael Soden, soden@ikv.de soden@fokus.fraunhofer.de)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: The Note in Section 7.1 on Extents deferred the clarification of the concept and mapping of extents to the FTF of the finalization process. We need some clarifications here.
Resolution: 
Revised Text: Resolution:
This fact should be clarified and this section modified to reflect the final handling of extents.

Extents and URIExtends are not mapped.
First part of Note in section 7.1 changed from 
Note for clarification of the notion of Extents in the MOF-IDL mapping.
Since the meaning of Extents changed a lot since MOF1.4, we should clarify our notion of a mapping of extents regarding a realization in a CORBA environment. Basically, we do not define concrete IDL operations/interfaces for extents (initially) for two reasons:
(1) A concrete realization heavily depends on the "interference" of extents with the Facility spec concepts. While watching the UML/MOF 2.0 FTF fruitful discussions and issues regarding XMI, we found it best to defer the alignment of extents mapped to IDL to the FTF process for the MOF2.0-IDL according to actual results. This is especially true for URIExtents.
(2) Due to the reference/value call-semantic choices. The following picture visualizes the dilemma:
to 
Note for clarification of the notion of Extents in the MOF-IDL mapping.
Since the meaning of Extents changed a lot since MOF1.4, we should clarify our notion of a mapping of extents regarding a realization in a CORBA environment. IDL operations/interfaces are not generated for extents for the following reason visualized the diagram below:

Actions taken:
November 15, 2005: received issue
March 8, 2006: closed issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
MG Issue No: [Temp12]
Title:	Clarify the Extents concept in the mapping.
Source:
Michael Soden, soden@ikv.de
Summary:
The Note in Section 7.1 on Extents deferred the clarification of the concept and mapping of extents to the FTF of the finalization process. We need some clarifications here.

Discussion:

Resolution:
This fact should be clarified and this section modified to reflect the final handling of extents.

Extents and URIExtends are not mapped.
First part of Note in section 7.1 changed from 
Note for clarification of the notion of Extents in the MOF-IDL mapping.
Since the meaning of Extents changed a lot since MOF1.4, we should clarify our notion of a mapping of extents regarding a realization in a CORBA environment. Basically, we do not define concrete IDL operations/interfaces for extents (initially) for two reasons:
(1) A concrete realization heavily depends on the "interference" of extents with the Facility spec concepts. While watching the UML/MOF 2.0 FTF fruitful discussions and issues regarding XMI, we found it best to defer the alignment of extents mapped to IDL to the FTF process for the MOF2.0-IDL according to actual results. This is especially true for URIExtents.
(2) Due to the reference/value call-semantic choices. The following picture visualizes the dilemma:
to 
Note for clarification of the notion of Extents in the MOF-IDL mapping.
Since the meaning of Extents changed a lot since MOF1.4, we should clarify our notion of a mapping of extents regarding a realization in a CORBA environment. IDL operations/interfaces are not generated for extents for the following reason visualized the diagram below:


Disposition:	open
:wq