I think I raised all the issues against SDO C++. The purpose of them is to track the current differences between what is specified and what is implemented, with the aim of making the implementation of the C++ SDO closer to the C++ specification, and if possible and desirable, making the C++ interface closer to the java specification. None of the issues raised are intended to imply a change of the specification to closer reflect the implementation. If in implementing the code, a divergeance from the spec seems useful, it will be raised as a concern on the SDO spec group.
On 09/03/06, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Folks, > > I notice a number of JIRA issues raised against the SDO C++ > implementation that have the smell of being specification issues rather > than implementation issues. > > If the issues really do imply changing or extending the specification of > SDO for C++, then I believe that the issues should rightly be raised > against the specification itself (the spec group have their own > infrastructure and email lists). > > I'm OK with having "tracker" issues raised in the Tuscany project which > point to issues raised with the specs, but it must be clear that any > changes to the specs must ultimately be made by the specification teams. > > > Yours, Mike. >
