Issue 1853: Is WRONGTRANSACTION a SystemException or a UserException (ots-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Summary: is WRONGTRANSACTION a SystemException or a UserException? I haven"t checked the latest CORBA draft, but some ORB vendors (e.g., Sun) are implementing it as a UserException, whereas others Resolution: This issue has been closed without action. See the discussion section for an explanation. Revised Text: Actions taken: August 24, 1998: received issue January 16, 2001: closed issue Discussion: The OTS spec will be changed by the AB/PTC to reflect that WrongTransaction is a user exception and that WRONG_TRANSACTION does not exist as a system exception. (It is only intended that WrongTransaction be raised by the get_response and get_next_response operations on the ORB.) Since this issue is the same as the core issue 557, this issue will be closed without action by the OTS RTF. End of Annotations:===== Return-Path: Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 12:05:57 +0100 From: Mark Little Organization: Newcastle University To: issues@omg.org, ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: further issues for OTS RTF Here are some more issues which I've come across while implementing the OTS. In no particular order: (vi) is WRONGTRANSACTION a SystemException or a UserException? I haven't checked the latest CORBA draft, but some ORB vendors (e.g., Sun) are implementing it as a UserException, whereas others (e.g., Olivetti) have it as a SystemException. (I assumed it was going to be a SystemException like INVALID_TRANSACTION). From: blakeb@gemstone.com (Blake Biesecker) Subject: Issues 1853 & 1863m (WrongTransaction and WRONG_TRANSACTION) To: ots-rtf@omg.org Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 11:23:08 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: ^]]d9n>(!!Xd&!!dp~!! Since both these issues deal with WrongTransaction vs. WRONG_TRANSACTION problem, I think we should combine the discussions on them since any resolution should address both issues. It looks like the only reference to WRONG_TRANSACTION in the OTS spec (ptc/99-10-07) is controlled by the Messaging specificiation. All references made in orbos/97-12-01 or formal/98-07-09 have been removed. Does anybody know what caused the OTS's references to WRONG_TRANSACTION to be removed in ptc/99-10-07? Blake Biesecker GemStone Systems Tel: (503) 533-3434 email: blakeb@gemstone.com Issue 1853: Is WRONGTRANSACTION a SystemException or a UserException (ots-rtf) Click here for this issue's archive. Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Summary: is WRONGTRANSACTION a SystemException or a UserException? I haven"t checked the latest CORBA draft, but some ORB vendors (e.g., Sun) are implementing it as a UserException, whereas others Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: August 24, 1998: received issue Discussion: received issue Issue 1963: WrongTransaction vs WRONG_TRANSACTION (ots-rtf) Click here for this issue's archive. Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Summary: The latest OTS spec (formal/98-07-09) has this exception as WRONG_TRANSACTION, while the CORBA 2.2 and draft CORBA 2.3 documents have WrongTransaction. Which one is right, and is it a system exception, as implied by the OTS, or a user exception as implied by CORBA 2.2? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: September 16, 1998: received issue August 19, 1999: moved from core to ots rtf Discussion: Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:51:44 -0500 From: Jishnu Mukerji Reply-To: jis@fpk.hp.com Organization: Hewlett-Packard EIAL, Florham Park NJ USA X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Blake Biesecker Cc: ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issues 1853 & 1863m (WrongTransaction and WRONG_TRANSACTION) References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: >!m!!K/Y!!#mIe9S/#!! Actually, this perennial issue (1853) is the same as issue 557, which was resolved in in June 1997 in probably what was one of the CORBA 2 Core RTFs stating clearly that WrongTransaction is a User Exception. See the discussion associated with issue 557. 1853 was transferred to the OTS RTF from the Core RTF to basically incorporate the already adopted position into the OTS spec. So I don't think the issue of whether WrongTransaction is a user exception or system exception is really open for discussion and this issue should be closed with appropriate changes in text in OTS, if they have not already been incorporated editorially. The resolution of 557 even has suggested new text, which may or may not have been incorporated in the OTS specification. So the current situation is WrongTransaction is right and WRONG_TRANSACTION is wrong, and WrongTransaction is a standard user exception. WrongTransaction is declared as a regular exception in the CORBA module, and is used only in DII. Jishnu. Blake Biesecker wrote: > Since both these issues deal with WrongTransaction > vs. WRONG_TRANSACTION problem, I think we should > combine the discussions on them since any resolution > should address both issues. > > It looks like the only reference to WRONG_TRANSACTION > in the OTS spec (ptc/99-10-07) is controlled by the > Messaging specificiation. All references made in > orbos/97-12-01 or formal/98-07-09 have been removed. > Does anybody know what caused the OTS's references > to WRONG_TRANSACTION to be removed in ptc/99-10-07? > > Blake Biesecker > GemStone Systems > Tel: (503) 533-3434 > email: blakeb@gemstone.com > > Issue 1853: Is WRONGTRANSACTION a SystemException or a UserException > (ots-rtf) > > Click here for this issue's archive. > Nature: Uncategorized Issue > Severity: > Summary: Summary: is WRONGTRANSACTION a SystemException or a > UserException? I haven"t checked the latest CORBA draft, but some > ORB vendors (e.g., > Sun) are implementing it as a UserException, whereas others > Resolution: > Revised Text: > Actions taken: > August 24, 1998: received issue > > Discussion: received issue > > Issue 1963: WrongTransaction vs WRONG_TRANSACTION (ots-rtf) > > Click here for this issue's archive. > Nature: Uncategorized Issue > Severity: > Summary: Summary: The latest OTS spec (formal/98-07-09) has this > exception as WRONG_TRANSACTION, while the CORBA 2.2 and draft CORBA > 2.3 > documents have WrongTransaction. Which one is right, and is it a > system exception, as implied by the OTS, or a user exception as > implied by CORBA 2.2? > Resolution: > Revised Text: > Actions taken: > September 16, 1998: received issue > August 19, 1999: moved from core to ots rtf > > Discussion: -- Jishnu Mukerji Systems Architect Email: jis@fpk.hp.com Hewlett-Packard EIAL, Tel: +1 973 443 7528 300 Campus Drive, 2E-62, Fax: +1 973 443 7422 Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA. X-Sender: ecobb@svlhome2.beasys.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 13:45:31 -0800 To: jis@fpk.hp.com, Blake Biesecker From: Edward Cobb Subject: Re: Issues 1853 & 1863m (WrongTransaction and WRONG_TRANSACTION) Cc: ots-rtf@omg.org In-Reply-To: <385E96E0.F9894BAF@fpk.hp.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-UIDL: Z0md9W%X!!e_[!!&PA!! Jishnu is correct. Since there has not been an OTS RTF in a while, the core change was never reflected in the OTS spec. Sounds like a good time to do so. At 03:51 PM 12/20/99 -0500, Jishnu Mukerji wrote: >Actually, this perennial issue (1853) is the same as issue 557, which was resolved in in June 1997 in probably what was one of the CORBA 2 Core RTFs >stating clearly that WrongTransaction is a User Exception. See the discussion associated with issue 557. 1853 was transferred to the OTS RTF from the Core >RTF to basically incorporate the already adopted position into the OTS spec. So I don't think the issue of whether WrongTransaction is a user exception or >system exception is really open for discussion and this issue should be closed with appropriate changes in text in OTS, if they have not already been >incorporated editorially. The resolution of 557 even has suggested new text, which may or may not have been incorporated in the OTS specification. > >So the current situation is WrongTransaction is right and WRONG_TRANSACTION is wrong, and WrongTransaction is a standard user exception. WrongTransaction >is declared as a regular exception in the CORBA module, and is used only in DII. > >Jishnu. > >Blake Biesecker wrote: > >> Since both these issues deal with WrongTransaction >> vs. WRONG_TRANSACTION problem, I think we should >> combine the discussions on them since any resolution >> should address both issues. >> >> It looks like the only reference to WRONG_TRANSACTION >> in the OTS spec (ptc/99-10-07) is controlled by the >> Messaging specificiation. All references made in >> orbos/97-12-01 or formal/98-07-09 have been removed. >> Does anybody know what caused the OTS's references >> to WRONG_TRANSACTION to be removed in ptc/99-10-07? >> >> Blake Biesecker >> GemStone Systems >> Tel: (503) 533-3434 >> email: blakeb@gemstone.com >> >> Issue 1853: Is WRONGTRANSACTION a SystemException or a UserException (ots-rtf) >> >> Click here for this issue's archive. >> Nature: Uncategorized Issue >> Severity: >> Summary: Summary: is WRONGTRANSACTION a SystemException or a UserException? I haven"t checked the latest CORBA draft, but some ORB vendors (e.g., >> Sun) are implementing it as a UserException, whereas others >> Resolution: >> Revised Text: >> Actions taken: >> August 24, 1998: received issue >> >> Discussion: received issue >> >> Issue 1963: WrongTransaction vs WRONG_TRANSACTION (ots-rtf) >> >> Click here for this issue's archive. >> Nature: Uncategorized Issue >> Severity: >> Summary: Summary: The latest OTS spec (formal/98-07-09) has this exception as WRONG_TRANSACTION, while the CORBA 2.2 and draft CORBA 2.3 >> documents have WrongTransaction. Which one is right, and is it a system exception, as implied by the OTS, or a user exception as implied by CORBA 2.2? >> Resolution: >> Revised Text: >> Actions taken: >> September 16, 1998: received issue >> August 19, 1999: moved from core to ots rtf >> >> Discussion: > > > > >-- >Jishnu Mukerji >Systems Architect > >Email: jis@fpk.hp.com Hewlett-Packard EIAL, >Tel: +1 973 443 7528 300 Campus Drive, 2E-62, >Fax: +1 973 443 7422 Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA. > > > > ************************************************************** Ed Cobb, Technical Director, Systems Architecture BEA Systems, Inc., 2315 North First St., San Jose, CA 95131 Tel: 408-570-8264 / Fax: 408-570-8942 E-mail: ed.cobb@beasys.com ************************************************************** From: blakeb@gemstone.com (Blake Biesecker) Subject: Re: Issues 1853 & 1963 (WrongTransaction and WRONG_TRANSACTION) To: jis@fpk.hp.com Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 13:42:22 -0800 (PST) Cc: ots-rtf@omg.org In-Reply-To: <385E96E0.F9894BAF@fpk.hp.com> from "Jishnu Mukerji" at Dec 20, 99 03:51:44 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: i3)e9XPXd9>%F!!SAdd9 OK, then we can close this one as being resolved. Since the change to the OTS spec would be from a different RTF (core update), we really don't need to address this. Ed, do the changes in ptc/99-10-07 in regards to WrongTransaction (in particular, the removal of the WRONG_TRANSACTION discussions) represent changes the PTC/AB have made in response to what Jishnu discusses below? I'm assuming that since ptc/99-10-07 does not mention WRONG_TRANSACTION except to point to chapter 7 of the core specification that this RTF doesn't need to worry about this. Please let me know if this is not the case. Blake > > Actually, this perennial issue (1853) is the same as issue 557, > which was resolved in in June 1997 in probably what was one of the > CORBA 2 Core RTFs > stating clearly that WrongTransaction is a User Exception. See the > discussion associated with issue 557. 1853 was transferred to the > OTS RTF from the Core > RTF to basically incorporate the already adopted position into the > OTS spec. So I don't think the issue of whether WrongTransaction is > a user exception or > system exception is really open for discussion and this issue should > be closed with appropriate changes in text in OTS, if they have not > already been > incorporated editorially. The resolution of 557 even has suggested > new text, which may or may not have been incorporated in the OTS > specification. > > So the current situation is WrongTransaction is right and > WRONG_TRANSACTION is wrong, and WrongTransaction is a standard user > exception. WrongTransaction > is declared as a regular exception in the CORBA module, and is used > only in DII. > > Jishnu. > > Blake Biesecker wrote: > > > Since both these issues deal with WrongTransaction > > vs. WRONG_TRANSACTION problem, I think we should > > combine the discussions on them since any resolution > > should address both issues. > > > > It looks like the only reference to WRONG_TRANSACTION > > in the OTS spec (ptc/99-10-07) is controlled by the > > Messaging specificiation. All references made in > > orbos/97-12-01 or formal/98-07-09 have been removed. > > Does anybody know what caused the OTS's references > > to WRONG_TRANSACTION to be removed in ptc/99-10-07? > > > > Blake Biesecker > > GemStone Systems > > Tel: (503) 533-3434 > > email: blakeb@gemstone.com > > > > Issue 1853: Is WRONGTRANSACTION a SystemException or a > UserException (ots-rtf) > > > > Click here for this issue's archive. > > Nature: Uncategorized Issue > > Severity: > > Summary: Summary: is WRONGTRANSACTION a SystemException or a > UserException? I haven"t checked the latest CORBA draft, but some > ORB vendors (e.g., > > Sun) are implementing it as a UserException, whereas others > > Resolution: > > Revised Text: > > Actions taken: > > August 24, 1998: received issue > > > > Discussion: received issue > > > > Issue 1963: WrongTransaction vs WRONG_TRANSACTION (ots-rtf) > > > > Click here for this issue's archive. > > Nature: Uncategorized Issue > > Severity: > > Summary: Summary: The latest OTS spec (formal/98-07-09) has this > exception as WRONG_TRANSACTION, while the CORBA 2.2 and draft CORBA > 2.3 > > documents have WrongTransaction. Which one is right, and is it a > system exception, as implied by the OTS, or a user exception as > implied by CORBA 2.2? > > Resolution: > > Revised Text: > > Actions taken: > > September 16, 1998: received issue > > August 19, 1999: moved from core to ots rtf > > > > Discussion: > > > > > -- > Jishnu Mukerji > Systems Architect > > Email: jis@fpk.hp.com Hewlett-Packard EIAL, > Tel: +1 973 443 7528 300 Campus Drive, 2E-62, > Fax: +1 973 443 7422 Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA. > > > X-Sender: ecobb@svlhome2.beasys.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 14:37:36 -0800 To: blakeb@gemstone.com (Blake Biesecker), jis@fpk.hp.com From: Edward Cobb Subject: Re: Issues 1853 & 1963 (WrongTransaction and WRONG_TRANSACTION) Cc: ots-rtf@omg.org In-Reply-To: References: <385E96E0.F9894BAF@fpk.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-UIDL: g&dd9Yk%e9?N^d9ESOK, then we can close this one as being resolved. > >Since the change to the OTS spec would be from a different >RTF (core update), we really don't need to address this. > >Ed, do the changes in ptc/99-10-07 in regards to WrongTransaction >(in particular, the removal of the WRONG_TRANSACTION discussions) >represent changes the PTC/AB have made in response to what >Jishnu discusses below? I'm assuming that since ptc/99-10-07 >does not mention WRONG_TRANSACTION except to point to chapter >7 of the core specification that this RTF doesn't need to >worry about this. Please let me know if this is not the >case. > >Blake > > >> >> Actually, this perennial issue (1853) is the same as issue 557, which was resolved in in June 1997 in probably what was one of the CORBA 2 Core RTFs >> stating clearly that WrongTransaction is a User Exception. See the discussion associated with issue 557. 1853 was transferred to the OTS RTF from the Core >> RTF to basically incorporate the already adopted position into the OTS spec. So I don't think the issue of whether WrongTransaction is a user exception or >> system exception is really open for discussion and this issue should be closed with appropriate changes in text in OTS, if they have not already been >> incorporated editorially. The resolution of 557 even has suggested new text, which may or may not have been incorporated in the OTS specification. >> >> So the current situation is WrongTransaction is right and WRONG_TRANSACTION is wrong, and WrongTransaction is a standard user exception. WrongTransaction >> is declared as a regular exception in the CORBA module, and is used only in DII. >> >> Jishnu. >> >> Blake Biesecker wrote: >> >> > Since both these issues deal with WrongTransaction >> > vs. WRONG_TRANSACTION problem, I think we should >> > combine the discussions on them since any resolution >> > should address both issues. >> > >> > It looks like the only reference to WRONG_TRANSACTION >> > in the OTS spec (ptc/99-10-07) is controlled by the >> > Messaging specificiation. All references made in >> > orbos/97-12-01 or formal/98-07-09 have been removed. >> > Does anybody know what caused the OTS's references >> > to WRONG_TRANSACTION to be removed in ptc/99-10-07? >> > >> > Blake Biesecker >> > GemStone Systems >> > Tel: (503) 533-3434 >> > email: blakeb@gemstone.com >> > >> > Issue 1853: Is WRONGTRANSACTION a SystemException or a UserException (ots-rtf) >> > >> > Click here for this issue's archive. >> > Nature: Uncategorized Issue >> > Severity: >> > Summary: Summary: is WRONGTRANSACTION a SystemException or a UserException? I haven"t checked the latest CORBA draft, but some ORB vendors (e.g., >> > Sun) are implementing it as a UserException, whereas others >> > Resolution: >> > Revised Text: >> > Actions taken: >> > August 24, 1998: received issue >> > >> > Discussion: received issue >> > >> > Issue 1963: WrongTransaction vs WRONG_TRANSACTION (ots-rtf) >> > >> > Click here for this issue's archive. >> > Nature: Uncategorized Issue >> > Severity: >> > Summary: Summary: The latest OTS spec (formal/98-07-09) has this exception as WRONG_TRANSACTION, while the CORBA 2.2 and draft CORBA 2.3 >> > documents have WrongTransaction. Which one is right, and is it a system exception, as implied by the OTS, or a user exception as implied by CORBA 2.2? >> > Resolution: >> > Revised Text: >> > Actions taken: >> > September 16, 1998: received issue >> > August 19, 1999: moved from core to ots rtf >> > >> > Discussion: >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jishnu Mukerji >> Systems Architect >> >> Email: jis@fpk.hp.com Hewlett-Packard EIAL, >> Tel: +1 973 443 7528 300 Campus Drive, 2E-62, >> Fax: +1 973 443 7422 Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA. >> >> >> > > > ************************************************************** Ed Cobb, Technical Director, Systems Architecture BEA Systems, Inc., 2315 North First St., San Jose, CA 95131 Tel: 408-570-8264 / Fax: 408-570-8942 E-mail: ed.cobb@beasys.com ************************************************************** From: blakeb@gemstone.com (Blake Biesecker) Subject: Re: Issues 1853 & 1963 (WrongTransaction and WRONG_TRANSACTION) To: ed.cobb@beasys.com (Edward Cobb) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:39:47 -0800 (PST) Cc: blakeb@gemstone.com, jis@fpk.hp.com, ots-rtf@omg.org In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991220143736.00c817d0@svlhome2.beasys.com> from "Edward Cobb" at Dec 20, 99 02:37:36 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: 0-:!!/0-!!L^-!!3FF!! ptc/99-10-07 looks correct to me. My only issue with it is that it refers to WRONG_TRANSACTION instead of WrongTransaction. Not a big deal and it is something for the Messaging RTF to worry about. (I will submit an issue to the Messaging RTF if this has not been brought to their attention yet.) Blake > > Blake, that should be true. If not, let me know so we can make sure it is > OK when it comes out of the components FTF. > > At 01:42 PM 12/20/99 -0800, Blake Biesecker wrote: > >OK, then we can close this one as being resolved. > > > >Since the change to the OTS spec would be from a different > >RTF (core update), we really don't need to address this. > > > >Ed, do the changes in ptc/99-10-07 in regards to WrongTransaction > >(in particular, the removal of the WRONG_TRANSACTION discussions) > >represent changes the PTC/AB have made in response to what > >Jishnu discusses below? I'm assuming that since ptc/99-10-07 > >does not mention WRONG_TRANSACTION except to point to chapter > >7 of the core specification that this RTF doesn't need to > >worry about this. Please let me know if this is not the > >case. > > > >Blake > > > > > >> > >> Actually, this perennial issue (1853) is the same as issue 557, which > was resolved in in June 1997 in probably what was one of the CORBA 2 Core RTFs > >> stating clearly that WrongTransaction is a User Exception. See the > discussion associated with issue 557. 1853 was transferred to the OTS RTF > from the Core > >> RTF to basically incorporate the already adopted position into the OTS > spec. So I don't think the issue of whether WrongTransaction is a user > exception or > >> system exception is really open for discussion and this issue should be > closed with appropriate changes in text in OTS, if they have not already been > >> incorporated editorially. The resolution of 557 even has suggested new > text, which may or may not have been incorporated in the OTS specification. > >> > >> So the current situation is WrongTransaction is right and > WRONG_TRANSACTION is wrong, and WrongTransaction is a standard user > exception. WrongTransaction > >> is declared as a regular exception in the CORBA module, and is used only > in DII. > >> > >> Jishnu. > >> > >> Blake Biesecker wrote: > >> > >> > Since both these issues deal with WrongTransaction > >> > vs. WRONG_TRANSACTION problem, I think we should > >> > combine the discussions on them since any resolution > >> > should address both issues. > >> > > >> > It looks like the only reference to WRONG_TRANSACTION > >> > in the OTS spec (ptc/99-10-07) is controlled by the > >> > Messaging specificiation. All references made in > >> > orbos/97-12-01 or formal/98-07-09 have been removed. > >> > Does anybody know what caused the OTS's references > >> > to WRONG_TRANSACTION to be removed in ptc/99-10-07? > >> > > >> > Blake Biesecker > >> > GemStone Systems > >> > Tel: (503) 533-3434 > >> > email: blakeb@gemstone.com > >> > > >> > Issue 1853: Is WRONGTRANSACTION a SystemException or a UserException > (ots-rtf) > >> > > >> > Click here for this issue's archive. > >> > Nature: Uncategorized Issue > >> > Severity: > >> > Summary: Summary: is WRONGTRANSACTION a SystemException or a > UserException? I haven"t checked the latest CORBA draft, but some ORB > vendors (e.g., > >> > Sun) are implementing it as a UserException, whereas others > >> > Resolution: > >> > Revised Text: > >> > Actions taken: > >> > August 24, 1998: received issue > >> > > >> > Discussion: received issue > >> > > >> > Issue 1963: WrongTransaction vs WRONG_TRANSACTION (ots-rtf) > >> > > >> > Click here for this issue's archive. > >> > Nature: Uncategorized Issue > >> > Severity: > >> > Summary: Summary: The latest OTS spec (formal/98-07-09) has this > exception as WRONG_TRANSACTION, while the CORBA 2.2 and draft CORBA 2.3 > >> > documents have WrongTransaction. Which one is right, and is it a > system exception, as implied by the OTS, or a user exception as implied by > CORBA 2.2? > >> > Resolution: > >> > Revised Text: > >> > Actions taken: > >> > September 16, 1998: received issue > >> > August 19, 1999: moved from core to ots rtf > >> > > >> > Discussion: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jishnu Mukerji > >> Systems Architect > >> > >> Email: jis@fpk.hp.com Hewlett-Packard EIAL, > >> Tel: +1 973 443 7528 300 Campus Drive, 2E-62, > >> Fax: +1 973 443 7422 Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > ************************************************************** > Ed Cobb, Technical Director, Systems Architecture > BEA Systems, Inc., 2315 North First St., San Jose, CA 95131 > Tel: 408-570-8264 / Fax: 408-570-8942 > E-mail: ed.cobb@beasys.com > ************************************************************** > X-Sender: ecobb@svlhome2.beasys.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:52:46 -0800 To: blakeb@gemstone.com (Blake Biesecker) From: Edward Cobb Subject: Re: Issues 1853 & 1963 (WrongTransaction and WRONG_TRANSACTION) Cc: blakeb@gemstone.com, jis@fpk.hp.com, ots-rtf@omg.org In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19991220143736.00c817d0@svlhome2.beasys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-UIDL: S`fd9*9*!!K>4e9iNXd9 Although the messaging RTF owns the text, the components FTF has assumed the responsibility for producing an updated OTS spec for components, messaging, and persistence. I've updated ptc/99-10-07 to make sure the final version has the proper case. At 03:39 PM 12/20/99 -0800, Blake Biesecker wrote: >ptc/99-10-07 looks correct to me. My only issue with it is that >it refers to WRONG_TRANSACTION instead of WrongTransaction. Not >a big deal and it is something for the Messaging RTF to worry >about. (I will submit an issue to the Messaging RTF if this >has not been brought to their attention yet.) > >Blake > > >> >> Blake, that should be true. If not, let me know so we can make sure it is >> OK when it comes out of the components FTF. >> >> At 01:42 PM 12/20/99 -0800, Blake Biesecker wrote: >> >OK, then we can close this one as being resolved. >> > >> >Since the change to the OTS spec would be from a different >> >RTF (core update), we really don't need to address this. >> > >> >Ed, do the changes in ptc/99-10-07 in regards to WrongTransaction >> >(in particular, the removal of the WRONG_TRANSACTION discussions) >> >represent changes the PTC/AB have made in response to what >> >Jishnu discusses below? I'm assuming that since ptc/99-10-07 >> >does not mention WRONG_TRANSACTION except to point to chapter >> >7 of the core specification that this RTF doesn't need to >> >worry about this. Please let me know if this is not the >> >case. >> > >> >Blake >> > >> > >> >> >> >> Actually, this perennial issue (1853) is the same as issue 557, which >> was resolved in in June 1997 in probably what was one of the CORBA 2 Core RTFs >> >> stating clearly that WrongTransaction is a User Exception. See the >> discussion associated with issue 557. 1853 was transferred to the OTS RTF >> from the Core >> >> RTF to basically incorporate the already adopted position into the OTS >> spec. So I don't think the issue of whether WrongTransaction is a user >> exception or >> >> system exception is really open for discussion and this issue should be >> closed with appropriate changes in text in OTS, if they have not already been >> >> incorporated editorially. The resolution of 557 even has suggested new >> text, which may or may not have been incorporated in the OTS specification. >> >> >> >> So the current situation is WrongTransaction is right and >> WRONG_TRANSACTION is wrong, and WrongTransaction is a standard user >> exception. WrongTransaction >> >> is declared as a regular exception in the CORBA module, and is used only >> in DII. >> >> >> >> Jishnu. >> >> >> >> Blake Biesecker wrote: >> >> >> >> > Since both these issues deal with WrongTransaction >> >> > vs. WRONG_TRANSACTION problem, I think we should >> >> > combine the discussions on them since any resolution >> >> > should address both issues. >> >> > >> >> > It looks like the only reference to WRONG_TRANSACTION >> >> > in the OTS spec (ptc/99-10-07) is controlled by the >> >> > Messaging specificiation. All references made in >> >> > orbos/97-12-01 or formal/98-07-09 have been removed. >> >> > Does anybody know what caused the OTS's references >> >> > to WRONG_TRANSACTION to be removed in ptc/99-10-07? >> >> > >> >> > Blake Biesecker >> >> > GemStone Systems >> >> > Tel: (503) 533-3434 >> >> > email: blakeb@gemstone.com >> >> > >> >> > Issue 1853: Is WRONGTRANSACTION a SystemException or a UserException >> (ots-rtf) >> >> > >> >> > Click here for this issue's archive. >> >> > Nature: Uncategorized Issue >> >> > Severity: >> >> > Summary: Summary: is WRONGTRANSACTION a SystemException or a >> UserException? I haven"t checked the latest CORBA draft, but some ORB >> vendors (e.g., >> >> > Sun) are implementing it as a UserException, whereas others >> >> > Resolution: >> >> > Revised Text: >> >> > Actions taken: >> >> > August 24, 1998: received issue >> >> > >> >> > Discussion: received issue >> >> > >> >> > Issue 1963: WrongTransaction vs WRONG_TRANSACTION (ots-rtf) >> >> > >> >> > Click here for this issue's archive. >> >> > Nature: Uncategorized Issue >> >> > Severity: >> >> > Summary: Summary: The latest OTS spec (formal/98-07-09) has this >> exception as WRONG_TRANSACTION, while the CORBA 2.2 and draft CORBA 2.3 >> >> > documents have WrongTransaction. Which one is right, and is it a >> system exception, as implied by the OTS, or a user exception as implied by >> CORBA 2.2? >> >> > Resolution: >> >> > Revised Text: >> >> > Actions taken: >> >> > September 16, 1998: received issue >> >> > August 19, 1999: moved from core to ots rtf >> >> > >> >> > Discussion: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jishnu Mukerji >> >> Systems Architect >> >> >> >> Email: jis@fpk.hp.com Hewlett-Packard EIAL, >> >> Tel: +1 973 443 7528 300 Campus Drive, 2E-62, >> >> Fax: +1 973 443 7422 Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> ************************************************************** >> Ed Cobb, Technical Director, Systems Architecture >> BEA Systems, Inc., 2315 North First St., San Jose, CA 95131 >> Tel: 408-570-8264 / Fax: 408-570-8942 >> E-mail: ed.cobb@beasys.com >> ************************************************************** >> > > > ************************************************************** Ed Cobb, Technical Director, Systems Architecture BEA Systems, Inc., 2315 North First St., San Jose, CA 95131 Tel: 408-570-8264 / Fax: 408-570-8942 E-mail: ed.cobb@beasys.com ************************************************************** From: "Mark Little" To: , "Blake Biesecker" , "Edward Cobb" Cc: References: <3.0.5.32.19991220134531.00c72590@svlhome2.beasys.com> Subject: Re: Issues 1853 & 1863m (WrongTransaction and WRONG_TRANSACTION) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:33:54 -0000 Organization: Newcastle University MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: o~Be9RWfd94AUd9UOR!! ----- Original Message ----- From: Edward Cobb To: ; Blake Biesecker Cc: Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 9:45 PM Subject: Re: Issues 1853 & 1863m (WrongTransaction and WRONG_TRANSACTION) > Jishnu is correct. Since there has not been an OTS RTF in a while, the > core change was never reflected in the OTS spec. Sounds like a good time to > do so. Agreed. Since I posted the issue originally this has been clarified in other texts, so I don't think it's an "issue" any longer. It's a user exception. Mark. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SENDER : Dr. Mark Little, Arjuna Project, Distributed Systems Research. PHONE : +44 191 222 8066, FAX : +44 191 222 8232 POST : Department of Computing Science, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU EMAIL : M.C.Little@newcastle.ac.uk