Issue 5455: Unreliable Multicast final adopted specification missing
Issue 5456: Disposition of IONA
Issue 5457: very good justification for not using a derived interface needed
Issue 5458: changes to IOP are not stated in section 5.3
Issue 5459: Consolidated IDL issue
Issue 5460: The included files appear to be from CORBA v2.2 or v2.3
Issue 5461: The FTF report should include a machine readable set of IDL files
Issue 5462: A.2 inconsistent with A.1
Issue 5463: Unreliable Multicast editorial issue
Issue 5464: issue with IDL ab/2002-07-02
Issue 5455: Unreliable Multicast final adopted specification missing (umcast-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Whatever happened to the final adopted specification doc #ptc/01-11-08? Is it meant to be a well kept secret? It should have superseded ptc/01-10-18?
What exactly happened to IONA? ptc/02-06-15 seems to be quite unclear about their disposition.
IONA is a member of the team and Eoghan Glynn is their representative as of November 20, 2002.
This is a critical show stopper issue, because without a clean resolution of this it breaks existing CORBA Core, and has significant impact on the published Java jar files etc. It looks like the submission just tosses in a bunch of additional operations into the POA interface, without bothering to define a derived interface. And yet it claims that this proposal is an optional conformance point for CORBA. So after this proposal is merged into Core, what is the implementer, who is not complying with this proposal supposed to do about these additional operations that will suddenly appear in the base POA interface? I would like to hear a very good justification for not using a derived interface for adding these operations. it seems like it will be difficult to state an optional conformance statement for the POA extension part, unless the interface is structured and packaged properly. Recommend that the added new operations be broken out into a separate interface named something like UMPOA that derives from POA and that contains only these new operations. Then the conformance statement can say that the Unreliable Multicast conformance point includes implementation of UMPOA.
It appears that due to an oversight the changes to IOP are not stated in section 5.3. Need to provide an updated version of the IOP module. Please get in touch with me. Also please populate the IOP module changes with actual assigned values of the Tags. It is kind of hard to compile something that looks like: ProfileId TAG_FOO_BAR = OMG Assigned; :-)
Resolution: The changes to the IOP module have been officially submitted to the AB and the Ids for group objects in the IOP module have been assigned
The consolidated IDL explicitly identifies files that have been included - CosNaming.idl, IOP.idl, GIOP.idl and CORBA.idl [sic!] This business of including CORBA.idl is a long running problem with a lot of specification that come out of the Realtime group of folks. Seems like a systemic error that should be easy to fix.:-)
The include of the idl file CORBA.idl has been removed from the consolidated IDL
The included files appear to be from CORBA v2.2 or v2.3. Since this standard will be an extension to CORBA v4.2 at least, and actually of CORBA of an even later vintage, wouldn't it make sense to try to compile this IDL relative to at least CORBA 2.4? It is not at all clear from the FTF report which version of CORBA was used to compile the non-delivered machine readable version of the IDL. Recommend that this be done at least with CORBA 2.6, and given that this will take another meeting cycle or two to complete, perhaps even do so against CORBA 3.0.
.
The FTF report should include a machine readable set of IDL files.
A.2 states that "The specification is a single, optional compliance point within the CORBA Core specification." This seems inconsistent with A.1 which picks out one aspect of MIOP (the Gateway interface) and states: "An interface to an MIOP gateway should be considered an optional interface." I read this as saying that Gateway is optional within MIOP, which overall implies 2 optional compliance points should be included in A.2: MIOP-without-Gateway and MIOP+Gateway
The FTF Report contains chunks of the temmplate meant for the document author and not intended to be left in the actual report.
Neither spec or FTF report mentions the separate IDL file ab/01-07-02 - The above IDL file contains a random line at the end "[] orbos - 2001-07-14 - Unreliable Multicast Revised Joint Submission Presentation.ppt " - The above IDL has 3 sub-files in one text file with no markings as to how to split it: better practice would be to use a zip file - * The IDL (in spec and separate file) refers in comments to CORBA 2.2 header files as formal/98-03-01 - which actually contains at least 3 syntax errors for IOP and GIOP meaning it won't compile. And which I found non-obvious to carve out into separate IOP and GIOP header files as required by the Multicast spec. So following the advice given by the comments in the IDL I was not able to get the IDL to parse (the problems I hit were all to do with the referred-to header files - I didn't get as far as the MIOP IDL).