CVS difference for ais/ai-00164.txt

Differences between 1.2 and version 1.3
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00164.txt

--- ais/ai-00164.txt	1998/10/01 03:20:18	1.2
+++ ais/ai-00164.txt	1998/10/03 04:28:54	1.3
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
-!standard E.2.2    (09)                               98-04-01  AI95-00164/01
+!standard E.2.2    (09)                               98-04-01  AI95-00164/02
 !class confirmation 98-04-01
 !class binding interpretation 96-10-04
+!status work item 98-10-02
 !status received 96-10-04
 !priority High
 !difficulty Easy
@@ -8,7 +9,7 @@
 
 !summary 98-04-01
 
-E.2.2(9) can be interpreted to permit a remote access to class wide (RACW)
+E.2.2(9) is interpreted to permit a remote access to class wide (RACW)
 type to designate a class-wide private extension of limited private type.
 
 !question 98-04-01
@@ -59,11 +60,14 @@
 
 !wording 98-04-01
 
+Add the following phrase to the end of the second sentence of paragraph
+E.2.2(9): "or any number of private extensions."
+
 !discussion 98-04-01
 
 There were two issues raised in this AI:
-=B7 application of RACW to private extension of limited private type
-=B7 removal of restriction on RACW to private types
+* application of RACW to private extension of limited private type
+* removal of restriction on RACW to private types
 
 Regarding the first issue, the intent of E.2.2(9) is not to exclude private
 extensions.  The conclusion that E.2.2(9) denies distributed object
@@ -80,6 +84,12 @@
 private is consistent with that placed upon a file type since in each case
 they both provide a handle to some external object.
 
+This AI reverses the decision at Henley meeting (April 97) by retaining the
+restriction that this paragraph apply to only private types (and
+extensions).  This ensures the least surprise to developers when
+non-distributed software modules are subsequently inserted into a
+distributed environment.
+
 !appendix 96-11-16
 
 !section E.2.2(09)
@@ -207,33 +217,6 @@
 without the dereferencing rule.
 
 
-
-****************************************************************
-
-!section E.2.2(09)
-!subject Definition of remote access type
-!reference RM95-E.2.2(9)
-!from Ron Theriault
-!keywords remote access objects OOP
-!reference 96-5718.a Ron J Theriault  96-10-4>>
-!discussion
-
-It may be true that one can extend a base type designated by a
-remote access-to-class-wide type, by adding new record components
-to the type, and still remotely access the derived type.
-However one cannot extend such a base type by adding operations
-to it, and still use an RACW type to access it.
-
-Since one cannot fully use type extensions in a distributed program,
-OOP methodology is not fully applicable to distributed programs.
-
-Additionally, the whole idea of reducing the functionality of a derived
-type, from that of the base type (as E.2.2(9) does), seems to run
-counter to the OOP paradigm.
-
-See also:
-    reference 96-5701.a Ron Theriault 96-9-18
-    reference 96-5702.a Anthony Gargaro  96-9-19
 
 ****************************************************************
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent