DDS DCPS IDL omission/typo PreviousNext
Data Distribution Service (DDS) Forum > DDS Technical Forum >
Message/Author
Next message Abdullah Sowayan  posted on Monday, March 17, 2008 - 02:26 pm
Hi Folks,

This may be silly, but is there a typo in the DDS DCPS IDL? I noticeed the
inconsistency while I was reading the spec last night. My question
relates to the following quality of service policy:
DURABILITYSERVICE_POLICY_NAME

The pattern is all QoS names is:

*_QOS_POLICY_NAME, except for the DURABILITYSERVICE

The pattern in all QOS IDs is:

*_QOS_POLICY_ID

The DURABILITYSERVICE does adhere to the pattern/convention for QOS IDs:
DURABILITYSERVICE_QOS_POLICY_ID

But it does not adhere to the pattern/convention for QOS Policy Names. So, is there a typo in DURABILITYSERVICE_POLICY_NAME, i.e., should it be
DURABILITYSERVICE_QOS_POLICY_NAME, or is the lacking of _QOS_
intentional?


Below is the IDL from the spec. Note the inconsistency.
//
----------------------------------------------------------------------
// Qos
//
----------------------------------------------------------------------
const string USERDATA_QOS_POLICY_NAME = "UserData";
const string DURABILITY_QOS_POLICY_NAME = "Durability";
const string PRESENTATION_QOS_POLICY_NAME = "Presentation";
const string DEADLINE_QOS_POLICY_NAME = "Deadline";
const string LATENCYBUDGET_QOS_POLICY_NAME =
"LatencyBudget";
const string OWNERSHIP_QOS_POLICY_NAME = "Ownership";
const string OWNERSHIPSTRENGTH_QOS_POLICY_NAME =
"OwnershipStrength";
const string LIVELINESS_QOS_POLICY_NAME = "Liveliness";
const string TIMEBASEDFILTER_QOS_POLICY_NAME =
"TimeBasedFilter";
const string PARTITION_QOS_POLICY_NAME = "Partition";
const string RELIABILITY_QOS_POLICY_NAME = "Reliability";
const string DESTINATIONORDER_QOS_POLICY_NAME =
"DestinationOrder";
const string HISTORY_QOS_POLICY_NAME = "History";
const string RESOURCELIMITS_QOS_POLICY_NAME =
"ResourceLimits";
const string ENTITYFACTORY_QOS_POLICY_NAME =
"EntityFactory";
const string WRITERDATALIFECYCLE_QOS_POLICY_NAME =
"WriterDataLifecycle";
const string READERDATALIFECYCLE_QOS_POLICY_NAME =
"ReaderDataLifecycle";
const string TOPICDATA_QOS_POLICY_NAME = "TopicData";
const string GROUPDATA_QOS_POLICY_NAME =
"TransportPriority";
const string LIFESPAN_QOS_POLICY_NAME = "Lifespan";
const string DURABILITYSERVICE_POLICY_NAME =
"DurabilityService";

const QosPolicyId_t INVALID_QOS_POLICY_ID = 0;
const QosPolicyId_t USERDATA_QOS_POLICY_ID = 1;
const QosPolicyId_t DURABILITY_QOS_POLICY_ID = 2;
const QosPolicyId_t PRESENTATION_QOS_POLICY_ID = 3;
const QosPolicyId_t DEADLINE_QOS_POLICY_ID = 4;
const QosPolicyId_t LATENCYBUDGET_QOS_POLICY_ID = 5;
const QosPolicyId_t OWNERSHIP_QOS_POLICY_ID = 6;
const QosPolicyId_t OWNERSHIPSTRENGTH_QOS_POLICY_ID = 7;
const QosPolicyId_t LIVELINESS_QOS_POLICY_ID = 8;
const QosPolicyId_t TIMEBASEDFILTER_QOS_POLICY_ID = 9;
const QosPolicyId_t PARTITION_QOS_POLICY_ID = 10;
const QosPolicyId_t RELIABILITY_QOS_POLICY_ID = 11;
const QosPolicyId_t DESTINATIONORDER_QOS_POLICY_ID = 12;
const QosPolicyId_t HISTORY_QOS_POLICY_ID = 13;
const QosPolicyId_t RESOURCELIMITS_QOS_POLICY_ID = 14;
const QosPolicyId_t ENTITYFACTORY_QOS_POLICY_ID = 15;
const QosPolicyId_t WRITERDATALIFECYCLE_QOS_POLICY_ID = 16;
const QosPolicyId_t READERDATALIFECYCLE_QOS_POLICY_ID = 17;
const QosPolicyId_t TOPICDATA_QOS_POLICY_ID = 18;
const QosPolicyId_t GROUPDATA_QOS_POLICY_ID = 19;
const QosPolicyId_t TRANSPORTPRIORITY_QOS_POLICY_ID = 20;
const QosPolicyId_t LIFESPAN_QOS_POLICY_ID = 21;
const QosPolicyId_t DURABILITYSERVICE_QOS_POLICY_ID = 22;
Next message Hans van 't Hag  posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 08:31 am
Hi Abdullah,

This is a typo. Good catch :-)
In our product (OpenSplice DDS) we've implemented the corrected IDL (DURABILITYSERVICE_QOS_POLICY_NAME)

Regards,
Hans
Next message Abdullah Sowayan  posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 - 05:34 pm
Hi,

I emailed issues@omg.org about this, I didn't get a response and didn't see my bug report posted.

OpenSplice has corrected this, but how can we make sure that this is fixed in the 1.3 DDS Spec so all vendor implementations will pick this up? It doesn't look like the OMG has an easy way to inform them about an issue.
Next message Hans van 't Hag  posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 03:00 pm
Hi Abdullah,

Don't worry, your issue has been received and is listed as DDS issue 12276 (registered on March 13 2008)

Everybody who's on the issues@omg.org and/or data-distribution-rtf@omg.org lists was notified accordingly.

Thanks,
Hans
Back to top
Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Post as "Anonymous"
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: