Issue 3453: Documentation of GIOPProtocolProperties (rt-corba-ftf) Source: Objective Interface Systems (Mr. Bill Beckwith, r.william.beckwith(at)ois.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: GIOPProtocolProperties no stated purpose. This needs to be clarified in the specification. Resolution: accepted Revised Text: Resolution: Remove interface GIOPProtocolProperties from the Real-Time CORBA IDL. Replace the second sentence of the first paragraph on page 55 of ptc/99-06-02 with : "A ProtocolProperties interface is not specified for GIOP, as GIOP currently has no configurable properties. A GIOPProtocolProperties type will be defined in the future, if any configurable properties are added to GIOP." Disposition : Accepted Actions taken: March 23, 2000: received issue January 9, 2001: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== X-Sender: beckwb@192.84.85.3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:42:00 -0500 To: rt-corba-ftf@omg.org From: Bill Beckwith Subject: Documentation of GIOPProtocolProperties Cc: issues@omg.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-UIDL: Organization: Highlander X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bill Beckwith CC: rt-corba-ftf@omg.org, jon@highlander.com Subject: Re: Documentation of GIOPProtocolProperties References: <4.2.0.58.20000323173810.0184a5a0@192.84.85.3> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: Z_P!!9c7!!k<%e9Km=!! Bill Beckwith wrote: > GIOPProtocolProperties no stated purpose. This needs to be clarified > in the specification. > > -- Bill Section 4.15.1, page 55 of the current document states that : 'An empty interface is specified for GIOP, as GIOP currently has no configurable properties.' I think that this is clear, but that there is still an issue here : why specify a null interface at this time? A nil object reference is equally acceptable for the orb_protocol_properties attribute, so we could just not specify the GIOP property for now, and change the text in 4.15.1 to say this. That way, the field is clear for specifying it at a later date, if GIOP does acquire some (standard) configurable properties. What do you think? Jon. Sender: jon Message-ID: <390DFD66.17985513@highlander.com> Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 17:55:50 -0400 From: Jon Currey Organization: Highlander X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rt-corba-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue 3453 : Documentation of GIOPProtocolProperties References: <4.2.0.58.20000323173810.0184a5a0@192.84.85.3> <39074961.14A2903D@highlander.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: g"P!!&d\!!L-;e9!4Je9 OK, as outlined last week, my proposal is that we drop the GIOPProtocolProperties type from the Real-Time CORBA IDL, and change the statement about it being an empty interface to one about no ProtocolProperties type being specified for GIOP. Proposal : Remove interface GIOPProtocolProperties from the Real-Time CORBA IDL. Replace the second sentence of the first paragraph on page 55 of ptc/99-06-02 with : "A ProtocolProperties interface is not specified for GIOP, as GIOP currently has no configurable properties. A GIOPProtocolProperties type will be defined in the future, if any configurable properties are added to GIOP." Jon. Jon Currey wrote: > > Bill Beckwith wrote: > > > GIOPProtocolProperties no stated purpose. This needs to be clarified > > in the specification. > > > > -- Bill > > Section 4.15.1, page 55 of the current document states that : > 'An empty interface is specified for GIOP, as GIOP currently has no configurable > properties.' > > I think that this is clear, but that there is still an issue here : why specify a > null > interface at this time? A nil object reference is equally acceptable for the > orb_protocol_properties attribute, so we could just not specify the GIOP > property for now, and change the text in 4.15.1 to say this. > > That way, the field is clear for specifying it at a later date, if GIOP does > acquire some (standard) configurable properties. > > What do you think? > > Jon. X-Sender: beckwb@192.84.85.3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 18:19:42 -0400 To: Jon Currey From: Bill Beckwith Subject: Re: Issue 3453 : Documentation of GIOPProtocolProperties Cc: rt-corba-ftf@omg.org In-Reply-To: <390DFD66.17985513@highlander.com> References: <4.2.0.58.20000323173810.0184a5a0@192.84.85.3> <39074961.14A2903D@highlander.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-UIDL: _YPd9"YTd9>WLe9+0&!! At 05:55 PM 5/1/00, Jon Currey wrote: > >OK, as outlined last week, my proposal is that we drop the >GIOPProtocolProperties type from the Real-Time CORBA IDL, >and change the statement about it being an empty interface >to one about no ProtocolProperties type being specified for >GIOP. Agreed. We still need a lot more in the way of transport and protocol property specification, but I don't think this is the right time and place for it. >Proposal : Remove interface GIOPProtocolProperties from the >Real-Time CORBA IDL. Replace the second sentence of the >first paragraph on page 55 of ptc/99-06-02 with : "A >ProtocolProperties interface is not specified for GIOP, as >GIOP currently has no configurable properties. A >GIOPProtocolProperties type will be defined in the future, >if any configurable properties are added to GIOP." Agreed. -- Bill >Jon. > >Jon Currey wrote: >> >> Bill Beckwith wrote: >> >> > GIOPProtocolProperties no stated purpose. This needs >> > to be clarified in the specification. >> > >> > -- Bill >> >> Section 4.15.1, page 55 of the current document states >> that : 'An empty interface is specified for GIOP, as GIOP >> currently has no configurable properties.' >> >> I think that this is clear, but that there is still an >> issue here : why specify a null interface at this time? A >> nil object reference is equally acceptable for the >> orb_protocol_properties attribute, so we could just not >> specify the GIOP property for now, and change the text in >> 4.15.1 to say this. >> >> That way, the field is clear for specifying it at a later >> date, if GIOP does acquire some (standard) configurable >> properties. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Jon. Sender: jon Message-ID: <3975B99E.3073116C@highlander.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:22:22 -0400 From: Jon Currey Organization: Highlander X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "rt-corba-ftf@omg.org" Subject: Proposal for Issue 3453 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: ;!*!!Ne6!!i>fd925Qe9 Issue 3453: Documentation of GIOPProtocolProperties (rt-corba-ftf) Summary: GIOPProtocolProperties no stated purpose. This needs to be clarified in the specification. My proposal is : Proposal : Remove interface GIOPProtocolProperties from the Real-Time CORBA IDL. Replace the second sentence of the first paragraph on page 55 of ptc/99-06-02 with : "A ProtocolProperties interface is not specified for GIOP, as GIOP currently has no configurable properties. A GIOPProtocolProperties type will be defined in the future, if any configurable properties are added to GIOP." Jon.