Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of kevan.miller@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.210.186 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        b=hig2yOea1A/DSoPwxcDwEpehgD9fiNThKqZnx1tOyeskEKuCiOj2v+fNsgQAzYTSB9
         q0W3pephiQNwdBg1bBRDx0nI45JEtfgFfu6c9JnZgjyhYTHi8TIfOnrjCeAntfUj+7wI
         VBduun/11TJg1Rr05ZBHn2F46Hd/BL86B7Gvk=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Subject: Re: [discuss] update Transaction.commit method signature in jta spec
 jar
From: Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <add18bc80909171313h357314o9b31050d2c97ce21@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:33:38 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <CBEA5E6E-AF52-4FBD-87C2-8FF2F7D0D6A7@gmail.com>
References: <add18bc80909171313h357314o9b31050d2c97ce21@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org


On Sep 17, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Lin Sun wrote:

>
> 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).

Been trying to find some motivation one way or another...

We can debate whether or not declaration of unchecked exceptions serve  
a useful purpose in this case. However, not sure if that really  
matters. In this instance, best to be accurate, IMO. So would support  
the update to our JTA spec.

--kevan