Issue 1958: Mapping of java.rmi remoteException superclasses (java2idl-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Summary: There is an issue with the currently specified mapping for Java remote and abstract interfaces containing methods that throw superclasses of java.rmi.RemoteException but do not throw java.rmi.RemoteException. In Java 1.1, these are not recognized as RMI remote interfaces. In Java 1.2, these are recognized as RMI remote interfaces. I propose that throwing these superclass exceptions be treated by the Java to IDL mapping as semantically equivalent to throwing both RemoteException and the superclass exception. This means that the section 4.3 rules for RMI/IDL remote interfaces would be changed to include this case (in point 3), with similar changes elsewhere in the spec. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: September 15, 1998: received issue February 23, 1999: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Return-Path: Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:20:16 +0100 From: Simon Nash Organization: IBM To: java2idl-rtf@omg.org CC: issues@omg.org Subject: Mapping of java.rmi.RemoteException subclasses There is an issue with the currently specified mapping for Java remote and abstract interfaces containing methods that throw subclasses of java.rmi.RemoteException in addition to java.rmi.RemoteException. In the mapped IDL, these subclass exceptions could be retained (as currently specified) or removed. I propose that these subclass exceptions be removed from the mapped IDL. This is because the inclusion of specific RemoteException subclasses in the throws clause of an RMI remote method is purely informational and has no semantic effect. If these subclass exception declarations are mapped to IDL, this gives them a semantic effect in IDL, which is inconsistent with their lack of semantic effect in Java, Simon -- Simon C Nash, IBM Java Technology Centre, Hursley, UK MailPoint 146, x245156 Tel. 01962 815156 or +44-1962-815156 Internet: nash@hursley.ibm.com Notes mail: Simon Nash@ibmgb