View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0002998 | 10000-003: Address Space | Spec | public | 2015-03-17 17:26 | 2015-06-09 18:49 |
Reporter | Assigned To | Wolfgang Mahnke | |||
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried |
Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
Target Version | 1.03 | Fixed in Version | 1.03 | ||
Summary | 0002998: 8.33 Structure: inheritence rules inconsistent? | ||||
Description | Section 8.33 says "This abstract DataType is the base DataType for all Structured DataTypes like Argument defined in 8.6. All DataTypes inheriting from this DataType have a special handling for the encoding as defined in Part 6. All Structured DataTypes shall inherit from this DataType if they are not defined as primitives in this standard (like NodeId defined in 8.2, a NodeId is structured but treated in a special way as defined in Part 6)." However, the reality is a little different. It seems that in some cases structures can derive from structures, such as AnonymousIdentityToken, UserNameIdentityToken, and X509IdentityToken; all three derive from UserIdentityToken (which derives from Structure). The CMPWG has a test-case based on the spec that says all structures derive from "Structure", but during CTT development this inconsistency was found. An ongoing discussion within the CMPWG reveals that there are several interpretations of the spec as it currently stands. Can structures inherit from other structures? | ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
Commit Version | |||||
Fix Due Date | |||||
|
Nothings says that structure data types must be derived from Structure directly. We have a type hierarchy or structure types already in OPC UA specifications. In some companion specifications we have even a structure type hierarchy several levels deep. |
|
Clarify that "inherit" in this case is directly or indirectly. |
|
The spec already clearly state the rules. Not in the place you have looked, but in 5.8.2 Please be aware that we do not repeat all information in various places since this would become a maintenance nightmare. |
|
discussed in phone call to remove sentence. |
|
removed the sentence at all, already discussed in phone call 2015-06-09 |
|
Agreed to changes in telecon. |
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
---|---|---|---|
2015-03-17 17:26 |
|
New Issue | |
2015-03-26 14:51 | Matthias Damm | Note Added: 0005986 | |
2015-05-05 15:36 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0006043 | |
2015-05-05 15:36 | Jim Luth | Target Version | => 1.03 |
2015-05-05 15:36 | Jim Luth | Assigned To | => Wolfgang Mahnke |
2015-05-05 15:36 | Jim Luth | Status | new => assigned |
2015-06-01 10:32 | Wolfgang Mahnke | Note Added: 0006102 | |
2015-06-01 10:32 | Wolfgang Mahnke | Status | assigned => resolved |
2015-06-01 10:32 | Wolfgang Mahnke | Resolution | open => won't fix |
2015-06-09 16:38 | Wolfgang Mahnke | Note Added: 0006117 | |
2015-06-09 16:38 | Wolfgang Mahnke | Status | resolved => feedback |
2015-06-09 16:38 | Wolfgang Mahnke | Resolution | won't fix => reopened |
2015-06-09 16:40 | Wolfgang Mahnke | Note Added: 0006118 | |
2015-06-09 16:40 | Wolfgang Mahnke | Status | feedback => resolved |
2015-06-09 16:40 | Wolfgang Mahnke | Resolution | reopened => fixed |
2015-06-09 18:49 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0006121 | |
2015-06-09 18:49 | Jim Luth | Status | resolved => closed |
2015-06-09 18:49 | Jim Luth | Fixed in Version | => 1.03 |