[Ace-users] [tao-users] DDS spec IDL typo?
mitza at ociweb.com
Thu Mar 13 10:31:11 CDT 2008
Sowayan, Abdullah (N-DUA) wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> I realize that this is not an ACE/TAO related question. But for the lack
> of a better venue (that I know of) I'm posting it here since some on the
> list are involved in providing DDS products (OCI, PrismTech). If there
> is a better venue for a question like this, please let me know.
If your questions are specific to OpenDDS you could use one of the
mailing lists hosted by sourceforge:
> This may be silly, but is there a typo in the DDS DCPS IDL?
Are you referring to the IDL in the spec? or the IDL in a particular
> I didn't spent much time investigating this but I did notice the
> inconsistency while I was reading the spec last night. My question
> relates to the following quality of service policy:
> The pattern is all QoS names is:
> *_QOS_POLICY_NAME, except for the DURABILITYSERVICE
> The pattern in all QOS IDs is:
> The DURABILITYSERVICE does adhere to the pattern/convention:
> So, is there a typo in DURABILITYSERVICE_POLICY_NAME, i.e., should it be
> DURABILITYSERVICE_QOS_POLICY_NAME, or is the lacking of _QOS_
Seems like an inconsistency and an oversight, not sure I'd call it typo.
Durability Service was added in v1.2 of the spec so it is not present in
Object Computing, Inc.
More information about the Ace-users