[omniORB-dev] ImR idl proposal

[pesco@gmx.de]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 03:33:06PM -0600, kendall bailey wrote:
> 
> I wasn't too thrilled with the term "program" either.  I couldn't use 
> "adapter" as H&V does.  However, there should be some logical grouping 
> of objects so that a bunch can be migrated all at once.  The ImR could 
> be told that program X is now hosted in process Y rather than Z, and the 
> thousands of objects that once would have auto-started process Z now 
> will start process Y.

Why can't we use adapters to group objects?


> With a portable ImR there is no need to make all those 
> objects share a POA though.

I don't think there's a need for a lot of objects to share the same
POA if we group by POA because the objects themselves could reside in
children of the POA registered in the ImR...


> H&V table 14.1 has "Logical Server Name", "POA Name", and host/port. 
> I'm replacing these with process, program and an IOR for a 
> ProcessManager.  You're welcome to suggest better names.

This reminds me of another question. Which information about an object
should comprise its identity within the location domain? If
administered by adapter, the object key within the target ORB, or some
resemblence thereof (assuming we can't get at the key in a portable way)
would work?


-Sven Moritz