Issue 4350: Ambiguous "SUCCESS" message in RT-CORBA priority bands
Issue 4394: Small typo in the RT CORBA chapter of the CORBA/IIOP 2.4 spec
Issue 4350: Ambiguous "SUCCESS" message in RT-CORBA priority bands (rt-corba-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: University of California, Irvine (Mr. Carlos O'Ryan, nobody)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The RT-CORBA specification, even after the FTF modifications
(pt/00-09-02) reads:
-----------------------------
4.12.2 Binding of Priority Banded Connection
[6th paragraph]
.... Having done this the ORB shall send a "SUCCESS" Reply message. If
the.....
-----------------------------
No definition for what form this SUCCESS reply should take. One should
assume that it is a regular GIOP Reply message, with the reply_status set to
NO_EXCEPTION. The spec is at least misleading, should the string "SUCCESS"
be returned? Or should a boolean value of "SUCCESS" be returned? Or just
returning an empty reply is enough?
Suggested fixes:
1) Define the _bind_priority_band() [pseudo?-]operation using IDL, that
would at least clarify the contents of all messages, something like the
following:
module CORBA {
// PIDL
interface Object {
...
..
void _bind_priority_band ();
};
2) Change the paragraph to read:
When a Real-Time-ORB receives a _bind_priority_band Request it should
allocate
resources to the connection and configure those resources appropriately to
the priority
band indicated in the ServiceContext. Having done this the ORB shall send a
GIOP Reply
message with the reply_status field set to NO_EXCEPTION.
The CORBA/IIOP 2.4.2 spec (formal/01-02-033) contains a small typo in page 24-21, section 24.13 "Real-Time Current", second paragraph after the code segment. It reads "PrioirtyMapping::to_native" (note the reversed 'ir' in PriorityMapping).