[omniORB-dev] ImR idl proposal

[Duncan Grisby]

On Tuesday 28 January, krbailey6@mchsi.com wrote:

> I thought there would be some value to keeping part of the server
> identity out of the IOR's that the ImR generated.  How would your
> scheme deal with migration of objects from one part of the tree to
> another?  Say that all foo/bar objects need to move to the process B
> that also hosts abc/xyz objects?  The IORs are already published,
> but now the IOR with foo/bar/baz/wibble really ought to be
> abc/xyz/baz/wibble in order to trigger startup of process B.

That could be handled by just putting more than one entry for process
B in the ImR, one for abc/xyz and one for foo/bar.

> Your scheme could combine the subsytem/object name pair into a
> single structured string as you've described, but not eliminate the
> need for process names.  If that's what you meant, then I can agree
> with that.

That's what I meant.

>    My motivation for splitting subsystem names from object
> names was to avoid imposing any structure on the names' formats.

I'm torn between whether that's a good idea or not. On the one hand,
imposing structure on the names limits the things that programs can do
with them; on the other hand, imposing structure makes everything
easier to use, and opens the possibility for changing the level in the
hierarchy at which the programs live. I'm not sure it will make much
difference in the long run either way.

>    If there is to be hierarchical structure, is it advisable to use
> delimiter characters as you suggest, or should we use a structured
> type similar to the way CosNaming does with NameComponent
> sequences??  I find myself always using the string representation of
> CosNaming::NameComponent sequences anyway, so structured strings are
> fine with me.

I think the experience of NameComponents shows that using a sequence
is a real pain to program, especially for C++. I think flat strings
are much easier for everyone to deal with. Again, it's not a big deal
either way.

>  In any case, I think the server process should see the whole
> identifier, and not just the trailing portion.  The initial portions
> may correspond to POA names that the ProcessManager can use to
> traverse the POA hierarchy.

I think it would be sensible to give the process both the full name,
and the bit that the ImR hasn't resolved. I can see situations where
either would be useful.

Cheers,

Duncan.

-- 
 -- Duncan Grisby         --
  -- duncan@grisby.org     --
   -- http://www.grisby.org --