Bug 313

Case 1:
jvm 1 instantiates interface "Test1" on OAPort N and in Persistent Poa 
named "MyPoa"
It is a server process.

jvm 2 instantiates interface "Test2" on OAPort N+1 and in Persistent Poa 
named "MyPoa".  Poa in jvm 2 has the SAME name as the Poa in jvm 1.
It is a server process, but it also is a client to interface "Test1" in jvm 1.

When I call non_existent, I get a NullPointerException:
java.lang.NullPointerException
01/14 18:53:58:ERR:[Conn_FileReadService]:java.lang.NullPointerException
java.lang.NullPointerException
	at org.jacorb.orb.Delegate.non_existent(Delegate.java:1304)
	at org.omg.CORBA.portable.ObjectImpl._non_existent(ObjectImpl.java:57)
Because reference "so" in Delegate.java is null.

This is all because the orb is wrongly assuming that is_really_local is true.  
I think it implies that it thinks that the implemention could be running in the 
same VM.  And further tests described later imply this also.
With jacorb.verbosity=2, I see this before the NullPointerException:
############################ StackTrace ############################
org.omg.PortableServer.POAPackage.ObjectNotActive: 
IDL:omg.org/PortableServer/POA/ObjectNotActive:1.0
	at org.jacorb.poa.POA.reference_to_servant(POA.java:1380)
	at org.jacorb.orb.Delegate.servant_preinvoke(Delegate.java:1473)
	at org.jacorb.orb.Delegate.non_existent(Delegate.java:1300)
	at org.omg.CORBA.portable.ObjectImpl._non_existent(ObjectImpl.java:57)

So, it should recover from this and just return true for_non_existent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next case, 

Case 2:
jvm 1 instantiates interface "Test1" on OAPort N and in Persistent Poa 
named "MyPoa"
It is a server process.

jvm 2 instantiates interface "Test1" on OAPort N+1 and in Persistent Poa 
named "MyPoa".  Poa in jvm 2 has the SAME name as the Poa in jvm 1.
The difference from Case1 is that both jvms are invoking the SAME interface
It is a server process, but it also is a client to interface "Test1" in jvm 1.  

When I invoke _non_existent here, it returns false, and I am able to invoke a 
method on interface 1.  I think that jvm2 is actually invoking the method on 
it's OWN implementation in it's OWN jvm.  I think this because there is no line 
that says:
[ ConnectionManager: created new conn to target xx.xx.xx.xx:portN+1].

Is it assuming that I want to talk to this interface in the same JVM?
This is really a test to prove a point.  It's not as important as Case 1.