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
>
>
|