Issues for Mailing list of the QoS for CCM Finalization Task Force

To comment on any of these issues, send email to qos4ccm-ftf@omg.org. (Please include the issue number in the Subject: header, thusly: [Issue ###].) To submit a new issue, send email to issues@omg.org.

List of issues (green=resolved, yellow=pending Board vote, red=unresolved)

List options: All ; Open Issues only; or Closed Issues only

Issue 9735: Section: 8.6 Derivation of RequestInfo
Issue 9748: Examples
Issue 11319: QoS for CCM ComponentInstallation
Issue 11322: operations in the interface StubContainerInterceptor
Issue 16253: ExtensionComponent and ccm_remove

Issue 9735: Section: 8.6 Derivation of RequestInfo (qos4ccm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS (Mr. Tom Ritter, ritter(at)fokus.fraunhofer.de)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:

Derivation of RequestInfo Why isn't ContainerClientRequestInfo simply derived (with no extension) from PortableInterceptor::ClientRequestInfo? This would save a step (calling request_info()) in user code. Why isn't ContainerServerRequestInfo simply derived (with no extension) from PortableInterceptor::ServerRequestInfo? This would save a step (calling request_info()) in user code.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 18, 2006: received issue

Issue 9748: Examples (qos4ccm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS (Mr. Tom Ritter, ritter(at)fokus.fraunhofer.de)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:

More complete examples that show the actual QoSConstraint structures, the deployment of QoSEnablers, the negotiation, and the use of the COPIs would be really helpful in understanding the spec.

Resolution: deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 18, 2006: received issue

Discussion:

Although a prototype implementation of the specification exists. It is not 100%
complete and in particular does not directly reflect the changes resulting from this
FTF report. A completely conformant implementation and description of the listed
examples is currently not available. An updated implementation of the
specification can be expected to be available after publication of the FTF report.
For this reason a complete example can be described afterwards. Furthermore,
the examples are part of the non-normative annex. For these reasons this Issue
is deferred to RTF.

Issue 11319: QoS for CCM ComponentInstallation (qos4ccm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: THALES (Mr. Olivier Hachet, olivier.hachet(at)thalesgroup.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In section 8.11.4 (deployment), the ComponentInstallation interface is
referenced. It no more part of the current CCM specification and shall be
replaced by elements of D&C spec. NodeManager for the physical
transportation and NodeApplicationManager for the loading of libraries

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 29, 2007: received issue

Issue 11322: operations in the interface StubContainerInterceptor (qos4ccm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA (Dr. Ansgar Radermacher, ansgar.radermacher(at)cea.fr)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The operations in the interface StubContainerInterceptor have an out boolean parameter called "con". It corresponds (I think) to the parameter "proceed_call" described in the text and should therefore be renamed accordingly

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 30, 2007: received issue

Issue 16253: ExtensionComponent and ccm_remove (qos4ccm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Remedy IT (Mr. Johnny Willemsen, jwillemsen(at)remedy.nl)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Can anyone explain why the ExtensionComponent only delivers the
ccm_remove method and not all the other methods which the
SessionComponent has?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 20, 2010: received issue