Issues for Mailing list of the UML Profile for CORBA Components Finalization Task Force

To comment on any of these issues, send email to uml-ccm-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 7628: definition of the stereotype CORBAPrimaryKey
Issue 7629: The (IDL) definition of the example is not correct
Issue 7632: Facet and Receptacles (ports)
Issue 7633: Event ports
Issue 7634: Figure6: associations described Event ports have to be composite associatio
Issue 7635: Association needed
Issue 9238: Section: Figure 13.9

Issue 7628: definition of the stereotype CORBAPrimaryKey (uml-ccm-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS (Mr. Tom Ritter, tom.ritter(at)fokus.fraunhofer.de)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The definition of the stereotype CORBAPrimaryKey makes too strong restrictions. The CORBA Component Model defines a primary key as an ordinary valuetype, which is derived from Components::PrimaryKeyBase. Using the stereotype PrimaryKey would prevent me from using this valuetype in other parts of my application as a plain valuetype (e.g operation parameter). Suggestion: Remove stereotyp CORBAPrimaryKey. Use stereotype CORBAValueDef instead and refomulate the constraints accordingly. (e.g. inheritance)

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 13, 2004: received issue

Issue 7629: The (IDL) definition of the example is not correct (uml-ccm-ftf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS (Mr. Tom Ritter, tom.ritter(at)fokus.fraunhofer.de)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The (IDL) definition of the example is not correct. The valuetyp for the key is not allowed to be abstract and it must have at least one public member. Furthermore, this key needs to be derived from Components::PrimaryKeyBase. The picture of the UML model should also be completely shown (i.e. including the member of the primary key). Suggestion: Modify example (IDL and picture) 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 13, 2004: received issue

Issue 7632: Facet and Receptacles (ports) (uml-ccm-ftf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: IKV++ Technologies AG (Dr. Marc Born, born(at)ikv.de)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary:
Facet and Receptacles (ports) are specified as an UML association, but their names are specified as role names of the association end of the referenced interface. It means, the component refers directly to the external interface – it’s confusing and less intuitiv. Suggestion: Facet and Receptacle names are the names of the associations, describing ports. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 16, 2004: received issue

Issue 7633: Event ports (uml-ccm-ftf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: IKV++ Technologies AG (Dr. Marc Born, born(at)ikv.de)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary:
Event ports are specified as an UML association, but their names are specified as role names of the association end of the referenced event. It means, the component refers directly to the external event – it’s confusing. Suggestion: Event port (such as Facet and Receptacle) names are the names of the associations. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 16, 2004: recived issue

Issue 7634: Figure6: associations described Event ports have to be composite associatio (uml-ccm-ftf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: IKV++ Technologies AG (Dr. Marc Born, born(at)ikv.de)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Figure6: associations described Event ports have to be composite associations.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 16, 2004: received issue

Issue 7635: Association needed (uml-ccm-ftf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: IKV++ Technologies AG (Dr. Marc Born, born(at)ikv.de)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary:
Association with <<CORBAManages>> between HomeImplDef and ComponentImplDef is needed, otherwise you can’t navigate and define what HomeImplDef manages what ComponentImplDef.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 16, 2004: received issue

Issue 9238: Section: Figure 13.9 (uml-ccm-ftf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Watt Systems Technologies (Mr. Kenneth A. Lloyd, Jr., kalloyd(at)wattsys.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
In the composition between Signal and Property, the reference (from Kernel) was omitted from the Property. Property does not seem to exist (nor has been incremented) in the CommonBehavior::Communications Package. In ptc/03-07-06, Property class is shown to be from the Classes::Kernel Package.

Resolution: withdrawn by submitter
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 7, 2006: received issue
January 19, 2006: closed issue