geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lin Sun <linsun....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [discuss] update Transaction.commit method signature in jta spec jar
Date Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:46:32 GMT
Thanks.  If there is no objection by end of Sunday, I'll start this
work earlier next week.

Lin

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Jack Cai <greensight@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed, since it won't hurt.
>
> -Jack
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Lin Sun <linsun.unc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Recently, I opened GERONIMO-4683 in G about the Transaction.commit
>> signature is missing the IllegalStateException.  The reason why I
>> raised this JIRA is because in OSGi RFC 98 (Transaction in OSGi)
>> compliance test, we use Geronimo's JTA spec jar as the baseline.
>> During OSGi RFC 98 compliance test run with an implementation of RFC
>> 98, OSGi signature test currently checks strictly on exceptions throw
>> by each of the method to see if it is the same as the baseline's
>> signature, which is the Geronimo JTA spec jar.   If it is not the same
>> the test fail.   For example, below is what is specified by the JTA
>> java doc and G JTA spec.
>>
>>
>> G JTA spec jar - Transaction.java
>> public void commit()
>>            throws HeuristicMixedException,
>>                   HeuristicRollbackException,
>>                   RollbackException,
>>                   SecurityException,
>>                   SystemException;
>>
>>
>> JTA 1.1 Java doc - Transaction.java
>> public void commit()
>>            throws RollbackException,
>>                   HeuristicMixedException,
>>                   HeuristicRollbackException,
>>                   SecurityException,
>>                   IllegalStateException,
>>                   SystemException
>>
>> What do you think of adding the missing unchecked exception
>> "IllegalStateException" back to our JTA spec and release a newer
>> version of the JTA spec jar just to be the same as what is in the Java
>> doc?  I think it is good for us to be consistent with what is in the
>> JTA spec and we should be consistent in declaring the unchecked
>> exceptions (we currently declares the SecurityException but not the
>> IllegalStateException).
>>
>> p.s. if you are interested and have access to, the related discussion
>> is OSGi alliance can be found here -
>> https://www.osgi.org/members/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1447
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Lin
>
>

Mime
View raw message