| |
| | |
Home • About Us •A-Z Index• Search • | |
| Organization | Fujitsu Limited |
|---|---|
| Author | Kazuo Imada |
| Product Identification | Version/Release Number | Product Supplier | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | INTERSTAGE | 1.1 and on | Fujitsu Limited |
| Testing Environment | Binary-compatible Family | Portability Environment | Indicator of Compliance | Compliance Details | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. |
|
| None. | Test Report from Test Suite | Test Suite:
VSOrb 1.1.0 Test Report: FJ_VSOrb110_19990507 |
Question 1: Does the product interpret or ignore pragmas for RepositoryID formats?
Response
| Pragma | Product Behavior |
|---|---|
| ID Interpreted ? | Yes |
| prefix Interpreted ? | Yes |
| version Interpreted ? | Yes |
Rationale
These directives must be interpreted (yes) or ignored (no).
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section 7.6.4.
Question 2: Does the product require interface-specific pragmas to precede an Interface body?
Response
Rationale
Implementations are allowed to require such pragmas.
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section 3.5.2.
Question 3: Does the product require interface-specific pragmas to precede an operation declaration?
Response
Rationale
Implementations are allowed to require such pragmas.
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section 3.10.
Question 4: Which object adapters does the product supply?
Response
| Adapter | Supported |
|---|---|
| Basic Object Adapter (BOA) | Yes |
| Portable Object Adapter (POA) | No |
Rationale
This information is of use to server developers.
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section 2.1.11. Object adapters are expected to be present in an implementation.
Question 5: Do DII routines return a status code?
Response
Yes
Rationale
Conforming CORBA implementations are not required to return this status code. Conforming implementations are required to specify which Status behavior is supported.
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section 4.1.3.
Question 6: Does the product use the period character to partition the name space?
Response
No
Rationale
Implementations are allowed to use the period (.) for partitioning the name space.
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section 3.10.4.
Question 7: Does this implementation support the Interface Repository?
Response
Yes
Rationale
The implementation is required to document this optional behavoir.
Reference
The Open Group CORBA Product Standard
Question 8: Which language mappings does the product support?
Response
| Mapping | Supported |
|---|---|
| C | Yes |
| C++ | No |
| Java | No |
| Smalltalk | No |
| Cobol | No |
| Ada | No |
Rationale
A product registered as conformant to the CORBA Product Standard must offer one or more conforming language mappings.
Reference
The Open Group CORBA Product Standard.
Question 9: Can the implementation take advantage of templates if they are supported by the target environment?
Response
Not Applicable
Rationale
Use of templates is not required, nor is it disallowed.
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section 18.1.1.
Question 10: Can the implementation's IDL-to-C++ translator support 64-bit integer types?
Response
Not Applicable
Rationale
An alternative mapping is defined for integer types in 64-bit environments.
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section B.1.
Question 11: For which target environment can the implementation's IDL-to-C++ translator provide a mapping for module?
Response
| Environment | Mapping | Supported |
|---|---|---|
| namespace is supported | Module is mapped to C++ namespace | Not Applicable |
| namespace is not supported, nested classes are supported | Module is mapped to C++ classes | Not Applicable |
| namespace and nested classes are not supported | Module is mapped like C mapping | Not Applicable |
Rationale
Several alternative mappings are defined.
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section B.2.
Question 12: For which exception handling environments can the implementation's IDL-to-C++ translator provide a mapping?
Response
| Mapping | Supported |
|---|---|
| Real C++ exception handling is supported | Not Applicable |
| Real C++ exception handling is not supported | Not Applicable |
Rationale
Two alternative provisions are defined in the C++ mapping.
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section B.3.
Question 13: How does the product map the IDL interface construct?
Response
Not Applicable.
Rationale
Conforming implementations are free to use any of these methods.
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section 19.6.
Question 14: For which IDL types other than union does the product provide an explicit mapping?
Response
Rationale
Implementations may chose to provide both implicit and explicit mappings for types in addition to union, such as structs and sequences.
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section 19.6.
Question 15: Which constant handling environments can the implementation's IDL-to-COBOL translator support?
Response
| Environment | Supported |
|---|---|
| Constants are supported by the COBOL compiler | Not Applicable |
| Constants are not supported by the COBOL compiler (and are propagated by the IDL compiler) | Not Applicable |
Rationale
Constants are not supported in pure ANSI 85 COBOL.
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section 20.7.
Question 16: Which COBOL environments can the implementation's IDL-to-COBOL translator support for mapping basic data types?
Response
| Environment | Supported |
|---|---|
| Basic data types are mapped to COBOL Typedefs | Not Applicable |
| Basic data types are mapped to COBOL COPY files | Not Applicable |
Rationale
Typedef is an optional extension to ANSI 85 COBOL and may not be supported by all COBOL compilers.
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section 20.8.
Question 17: What additional rules does the product provide for resolving name space clashes?
Response
Rationale
The defined mapping defines a set of rules, but they cannot guarantee name clashes will not occur. Implementations may implement additional rules to further resolve clashes.
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section 21.4.1.
Question 18: Does the implementation use strings associated with Exception_Message and Exception_Information in the package Ada.Exceptions to ``carry'' exception members?
Response
Not Applicable
Rationale
The implementation is required to document this fact.
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section 21.5.8.
Question 19: Is access to CORBA services tasking-safe?
Response
Not Applicable
Rationale
The implementation is required to document this.
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section 21.5.11.
Question 20: Does the implementation support tasking-safe operations?
Response
Not Applicable
Rationale
An implementation may support tasking-safe operations, and if it does, the blocking behavior of CORBA operations will be managed at the task or program level. The implementation is required to document support and, if support is present, how it is managed.
Reference
Common Object Request Broker Architecture and Specification, Section 21.5.11.
Question 21: Conformance with IIOP Version 1.0 is required. Support for IIOP Version 1.1 is optional. Does this implementation support the optional IIOP Version 1.1?
Response
No
Rationale
The implementation is required to document this optional behavior.
Reference
The Open Group CORBA Product Standard.
Copyright © 1998-2011 The Open Group. All Rights Reserved.The Open Group and Boundaryless Information Flow are trademarks and UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.