Tom,
Any decision on this? ORB bug might not be fixed in 9.1 time frame.
-marina
Marina Vatkina wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I added all that I could to the comments:
>
> diff -r1.3 EnumTypeConverter.java
> 107a108,136
>
>> /**
>> * INTERNAL:
>> * Convert Enum object to the data value.
>> *
>> * Because of the following ORB issue, the Enum object returned from a
>> * client via unmarshalling, does not compare equals() to the instance
>> * created in this VM. This results in a corresponding value not being
>> * found, and in unexpected exception "No conversion value provided for
>> * the attribute [XXXXX]".
>> * The solution is to return the corresponding value from the Enum instance
>> * directly.
>> * Note, that this problem doesn't affect data to object conversion.
>> *
>> * The ORB issue: JDK 5 support for enum also required a small addition to
>> * the Java serialization spec to accommodate enums. This requires a
>> * corresponding change in the RMI-IIOP specification, which has a different
>> * serialization format than Java serialization and standard RMI over JRMP
>> * (not RMI-IIOP).
>> */
>> public Object convertObjectValueToDataValue(Object attributeValue, Session
>
> session) {
>
>> if (attributeValue == null) {
>> return super.convertObjectValueToDataValue(null, session);
>> }
>>
>> Enum theEnum = Enum.class.cast(attributeValue);
>> return (m_usesOrdinalValues)? theEnum.ordinal() : theEnum.name();
>> }
>>
>
>
> Is it enough?
>
> thanks,
> -marina
>
> Ken Cavanaugh wrote On 09/27/06 14:01,:
>
>>On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 13:05 -0700, Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Tom,
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, the ORB bug can't be fixed as per OMG spec it's the correct
>>>behavior. This is what Ken Cavanaugh wrote in the 193 notes: "Can't fix
>>>this for AS 9. May need a spec change at the OMG level."
>>>
>>>We had several user that needed ugly work arounds because of that problem.
>>>
>>>Ken, can you please comment on that? (Don't worry if you are not on the
>>>alias - I'll accept your email).
>>>
>>
>>The problem is that JDK 5 support for enum also required a small
>>addition to the Java serialization
>>spec to accommodate enums. This requires a corresponding change in the
>>RMI-IIOP specification,
>>which has a different serialization format than Java serialization and
>>standard RMI over JRMP
>>(not RMI-IIOP). There is now an issue at the OMG (issue 10336: see
>>http://www.omg.org/issues/java2idl-rtf.open.html#Issue10336 ), but the
>>Java to IDL RTF has not
>>yet voted on this.
>>
>>I think a reasonable approach for us might be to implement the
>>resolution to the issue as soon as
>>it is finalized and voted in. I think this will have to wait until the
>>JavaIDL RTF is re-chartered in
>>Anaheim this week. Harold used to be the Sun rep on the RTF, but since
>>he's moved on to
>>WSIT, I'll be taking his place on the RTF.
>>
>>I've just sent an email to the RTF alias to see when we can get started
>>on the issue. I'll also need to investigate
>>the impact of this fix on interoperability with other ORBs (especially
>>ours) that do not have the
>>fix.
>>
>>Ken.