Issue 2551: WrongTransaction vs. WRONG_TRANSACTION (ots-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Summary: Currently, ORB methods get_response() and get_next_response() throw user exception "WrongTransaction". Although this behavior satisfies CORBA 2.2 requirements, it causes problems. For instance, RequestInterceptor methods, whose interfaces are fixed and do not stipulate this exception in their throws clause, cannot implicitly throw WrongTransaction. Does it make sense that the ORB throws a user exception in this context? We"re wondering whether a mistake was made when the original requirement for WrongTransaction (a.k.a., WRONG_TRANSACTION in CORBAServices) was incorporated into CORBA. And if not, what was the motivation to make it a user exception. Resolution: duplicate, close issue Revised Text: Actions taken: March 19, 1999: 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:===== From: dzavala@us.ibm.com X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMUS To: issues@omg.org cc: transactions@omg.org, rschnier@us.ibm.com, highr@us.ibm.com, kevinz@us.ibm.com, toddw@us.ibm.com Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 17:51:04 -0600 Subject: WrongTransaction vs. WRONG_TRANSACTION Content-Disposition: inline My team is grappling with a defect and we would like some feedback from OMG before we resolve the matter. I copied the transactions workgroup with this request, just in case "issues" is the inappropriate forum. Would someone please address the following issue. The problem: Currently, ORB methods get_response() and get_next_response() throw user exception "WrongTransaction". Although this behavior satisfies CORBA 2.2 requirements, it causes problems. For instance, RequestInterceptor methods, whose interfaces are fixed and do not stipulate this exception in their throws clause, cannot implicitly throw WrongTransaction. Does it make sense that the ORB throws a user exception in this context? We're wondering whether a mistake was made when the original requirement for WrongTransaction (a.k.a., WRONG_TRANSACTION in CORBAServices) was incorporated into CORBA. And if not, what was the motivation to make it a user exception. What I found: Exception WRONG_TRANSACTION appears in CORBAServices 1.1. The spec. stipulates this exception is same one as described in Ch. 4 of the CORBA spec. I found exception "WrongTransaction" in ch4. of CORBA 2.1, and in ch. 5 of CORBA 2.2. Both indicate that it's a user exception. But its syntax in CORBAServices indicates that it could be a system exception (I believe system exceptions are declared in all-caps by convention). Further, conversations with the team and other architects along with the fact that our previous version of the ORB contained system exception org.omg.CORBA.WRONG_EXCEPTION, lead me (us) to believe that WrongTransaction may be improperly defined both in the spec. and in the current ORB codebase. That is, it was intended to be a system exception. Perhaps we're "missing something" here? Misc: I cannot find the pertinent CORBA 2.3 chapters to determine whether the spec. has changed in this respect, and I did not find any open issues at the OMG site that match this one. Thank you in advance. ...David dzavala@us.ibm.com, 8/553-5628, 1/(507)253-5628 Java ORB Team -- Component Broker, Websphere Application Server ____________________ D. A. Zavala IBM Software Solutions 3605 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 From: leou@us.ibm.com X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMUS To: Orb_revision@omg.org cc: transactions@omg.org, rschnier@us.ibm.com, highr@us.ibm.com, kevinz@us.ibm.com, toddw@us.ibm.com, dzavala@us.ibm.com, juergen@omg.org Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 07:39:08 -0600 Subject: Re: WrongTransaction vs. WRONG_TRANSACTION Content-Disposition: inline Juergen - This is a duplicate of issues 557 and 1963. What is confusing is that issue 557 says it's been resolved but doesn't give the answer, just a reference to some archived paragraph. 1963 is the same issue and shown as not yet resolved. The 2.3 copy I looked at still says it is the user exception, WrongTransaction. How was 557 resolved? or is this still an open issue. Does anybody know? Thanks, Leo ---------------------------------------------------- Leo Uzcategui, IBM Corp. 11400 Burnet Rd, Austin, TX 78758 (512) 823-9573, Fax: (512) 838-1032 leou@us.ibm.com ---------------------------------------------------- dzavala@us.ibm.com on 03/18/99 05:51:04 PM To: issues@omg.org cc: transactions@omg.org, Randy Schnier/Rochester/IBM, Rob High/Austin/IBM, Kevin Zemanek/Rochester/IBM, Todd Wiese/Austin/IBM (bcc: Leo Uzcategui/Austin/IBM) Subject: WrongTransaction vs. WRONG_TRANSACTION My team is grappling with a defect and we would like some feedback from OMG before we resolve the matter. I copied the transactions workgroup with this request, just in case "issues" is the inappropriate forum. Would someone please address the following issue. The problem: Currently, ORB methods get_response() and get_next_response() throw user exception "WrongTransaction". Although this behavior satisfies CORBA 2.2 requirements, it causes problems. For instance, RequestInterceptor methods, whose interfaces are fixed and do not stipulate this exception in their throws clause, cannot implicitly throw WrongTransaction. Does it make sense that the ORB throws a user exception in this context? We're wondering whether a mistake was made when the original requirement for WrongTransaction (a.k.a., WRONG_TRANSACTION in CORBAServices) was incorporated into CORBA. And if not, what was the motivation to make it a user exception. What I found: Exception WRONG_TRANSACTION appears in CORBAServices 1.1. The spec. stipulates this exception is same one as described in Ch. 4 of the CORBA spec. I found exception "WrongTransaction" in ch4. of CORBA 2.1, and in ch. 5 of CORBA 2.2. Both indicate that it's a user exception. But its syntax in CORBAServices indicates that it could be a system exception (I believe system exceptions are declared in all-caps by convention). Further, conversations with the team and other architects along with the fact that our previous version of the ORB contained system exception org.omg.CORBA.WRONG_EXCEPTION, lead me (us) to believe that WrongTransaction may be improperly defined both in the spec. and in the current ORB codebase. That is, it was intended to be a system exception. Perhaps we're "missing something" here? Misc: I cannot find the pertinent CORBA 2.3 chapters to determine whether the spec. has changed in this respect, and I did not find any open issues at the OMG site that match this one. Thank you in advance. ...David dzavala@us.ibm.com, 8/553-5628, 1/(507)253-5628 Java ORB Team -- Component Broker, Websphere Application Server ____________________ D. A. Zavala IBM Software Solutions 3605 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Sender: jis@fpk.hp.com Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 10:02:48 -0500 From: Jishnu Mukerji Organization: Hewlett-Packard EIAL To: dzavala@us.ibm.com CC: issues@omg.org, transactions@omg.org, rschnier@us.ibm.com, highr@us.ibm.com, kevinz@us.ibm.com, toddw@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: WrongTransaction vs. WRONG_TRANSACTION References: <85256738.00830569.00@D51MTA10.pok.ibm.com> > Exception WRONG_TRANSACTION appears in CORBAServices 1.1. The spec. > stipulates > this exception is same one as described in Ch. 4 of the CORBA spec. > I > found exception > "WrongTransaction" in ch4. of CORBA 2.1, and in ch. 5 of CORBA 2.2. > Both > indicate that > it's a user exception. But its syntax in CORBAServices indicates > that it > could be a > system exception (I believe system exceptions are declared in > all-caps by > convention). > Further, conversations with the team and other architects along with > the > fact that our previous > version of the ORB contained system exception > org.omg.CORBA.WRONG_EXCEPTION, lead me > (us) to believe that WrongTransaction may be improperly defined both > in the > spec. and in the > current ORB codebase. That is, it was intended to be a system > exception. > Perhaps we're "missing > something" here? This has been hashed over about once every six months for the last 18 months. So once again: For 2.3 draft Core chapters see ptc/98-12-04. The Core chapter 4 has been correct all along. WrongTransaction is *not* a system exception. It is a user exception. WRONG_TRANSACATION is incorrect. There is a pending issue sitting with the OTS RTF to fix it in the OTS Spec. Jishnu. Chair Core 2.4 RTF. Ps. Juergen, if you want to make this an issue close it no change while you are making it:-). I will mail you a list of related issues that has dealt with this in the past. I just gotta run to a meeting now -- 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. Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:58:47 +0000 From: Simon Nash Organization: IBM To: leou@us.ibm.com CC: Orb_revision@omg.org, transactions@omg.org, rschnier@us.ibm.com, highr@us.ibm.com, kevinz@us.ibm.com, toddw@us.ibm.com, dzavala@us.ibm.com, juergen@omg.org Subject: Re: WrongTransaction vs. WRONG_TRANSACTION References: <85256739.004B0D65.00@d54mta07.raleigh.ibm.com> Leo, WrongTransaction (user exception) is correct. We checked on this when we were putting the ORB class into JDK 1.2. As to why it is the way it is, I have no idea. Simon leou@us.ibm.com wrote: > > Juergen - This is a duplicate of issues 557 and 1963. > > What is confusing is that issue 557 says it's been resolved but > doesn't > give the answer, just a reference to some archived paragraph. 1963 > is the > same issue and shown as not yet resolved. The 2.3 copy I looked at > still > says it is the user exception, WrongTransaction. How was 557 > resolved? or > is this still an open issue. Does anybody know? > Thanks, Leo > ---------------------------------------------------- > Leo Uzcategui, IBM Corp. > 11400 Burnet Rd, Austin, TX 78758 > (512) 823-9573, Fax: (512) 838-1032 > leou@us.ibm.com > ---------------------------------------------------- > > dzavala@us.ibm.com on 03/18/99 05:51:04 PM > > To: issues@omg.org > cc: transactions@omg.org, Randy Schnier/Rochester/IBM, Rob > High/Austin/IBM, Kevin Zemanek/Rochester/IBM, Todd > Wiese/Austin/IBM > (bcc: Leo Uzcategui/Austin/IBM) > Subject: WrongTransaction vs. WRONG_TRANSACTION > > My team is grappling with a defect and we would like some feedback > from OMG > before we resolve the matter. I copied the transactions workgroup > with > this request, just in case "issues" is the inappropriate forum. > Would > someone please address the following issue. > > The problem: > > Currently, ORB methods get_response() and get_next_response() throw > user > exception > "WrongTransaction". Although this behavior satisfies CORBA 2.2 > requirements, it > causes problems. For instance, RequestInterceptor methods, whose > interfaces are fixed > and do not stipulate this exception in their throws clause, cannot > implicitly throw > WrongTransaction. Does it make sense that the ORB throws a user > exception > in > this context? We're wondering whether a mistake was made when the > original > requirement > for WrongTransaction (a.k.a., WRONG_TRANSACTION in CORBAServices) > was > incorporated > into CORBA. And if not, what was the motivation to make it a user > exception. > > What I found: > > Exception WRONG_TRANSACTION appears in CORBAServices 1.1. The spec. > stipulates > this exception is same one as described in Ch. 4 of the CORBA spec. > I > found exception > "WrongTransaction" in ch4. of CORBA 2.1, and in ch. 5 of CORBA 2.2. > Both > indicate that > it's a user exception. But its syntax in CORBAServices indicates > that it > could be a > system exception (I believe system exceptions are declared in > all-caps by > convention). > Further, conversations with the team and other architects along with > the > fact that our previous > version of the ORB contained system exception > org.omg.CORBA.WRONG_EXCEPTION, lead me > (us) to believe that WrongTransaction may be improperly defined both > in the > spec. and in the > current ORB codebase. That is, it was intended to be a system > exception. > Perhaps we're "missing > something" here? > > Misc: > > I cannot find the pertinent CORBA 2.3 chapters to determine whether > the > spec. has changed in this respect, and I > did not find any open issues at the OMG site that match this one. > > Thank you in advance. > > ...David > > dzavala@us.ibm.com, 8/553-5628, 1/(507)253-5628 > Java ORB Team -- Component Broker, Websphere Application Server > ____________________ > D. A. Zavala > IBM Software Solutions > 3605 Highway 52 North > Rochester, MN 55901 -- Simon C Nash, Technology Architect, IBM Java Technology Centre Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999 Hursley, England Internet: nash@hursley.ibm.com Lotus Notes: Simon Nash@ibmgb X-Sender: ecobb@svlhome2.beasys.com Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:17:39 -0800 To: leou@us.ibm.com, Orb_revision@omg.org From: Edward Cobb Subject: Re: WrongTransaction vs. WRONG_TRANSACTION Cc: transactions@omg.org, rschnier@us.ibm.com, highr@us.ibm.com, kevinz@us.ibm.com, toddw@us.ibm.com, dzavala@us.ibm.com, juergen@omg.org Leo, it should be a user exception because it is raised only by the get_response and get_next_response operations on the ORB. That makes i WrongTransaction, not WRONG_TRANSACTION. I looked at the OTS spec, however, and it still is referred to as WRONG_TRANSACTION. That needs to be fixed. At 07:39 AM 3/19/99 -0600, leou@us.ibm.com wrote: > > >Juergen - This is a duplicate of issues 557 and 1963. > >What is confusing is that issue 557 says it's been resolved but doesn't >give the answer, just a reference to some archived paragraph. 1963 is the >same issue and shown as not yet resolved. The 2.3 copy I looked at still >says it is the user exception, WrongTransaction. How was 557 resolved? or >is this still an open issue. Does anybody know? >Thanks, Leo >---------------------------------------------------- >Leo Uzcategui, IBM Corp. >11400 Burnet Rd, Austin, TX 78758 >(512) 823-9573, Fax: (512) 838-1032 >leou@us.ibm.com >---------------------------------------------------- > > > >dzavala@us.ibm.com on 03/18/99 05:51:04 PM > >To: issues@omg.org >cc: transactions@omg.org, Randy Schnier/Rochester/IBM, Rob > High/Austin/IBM, Kevin Zemanek/Rochester/IBM, Todd Wiese/Austin/IBM > (bcc: Leo Uzcategui/Austin/IBM) >Subject: WrongTransaction vs. WRONG_TRANSACTION > > > > > >My team is grappling with a defect and we would like some feedback from OMG >before we resolve the matter. I copied the transactions workgroup with >this request, just in case "issues" is the inappropriate forum. Would >someone please address the following issue. > >The problem: > >Currently, ORB methods get_response() and get_next_response() throw user >exception >"WrongTransaction". Although this behavior satisfies CORBA 2.2 >requirements, it >causes problems. For instance, RequestInterceptor methods, whose >interfaces are fixed >and do not stipulate this exception in their throws clause, cannot >implicitly throw >WrongTransaction. Does it make sense that the ORB throws a user exception >in >this context? We're wondering whether a mistake was made when the original > requirement >for WrongTransaction (a.k.a., WRONG_TRANSACTION in CORBAServices) was >incorporated >into CORBA. And if not, what was the motivation to make it a user >exception. > >What I found: > >Exception WRONG_TRANSACTION appears in CORBAServices 1.1. The spec. >stipulates >this exception is same one as described in Ch. 4 of the CORBA spec. I >found exception >"WrongTransaction" in ch4. of CORBA 2.1, and in ch. 5 of CORBA 2.2. Both >indicate that >it's a user exception. But its syntax in CORBAServices indicates that it >could be a >system exception (I believe system exceptions are declared in all-caps by >convention). >Further, conversations with the team and other architects along with the >fact that our previous >version of the ORB contained system exception >org.omg.CORBA.WRONG_EXCEPTION, lead me >(us) to believe that WrongTransaction may be improperly defined both in the > spec. and in the >current ORB codebase. That is, it was intended to be a system exception. >Perhaps we're "missing >something" here? > >Misc: > >I cannot find the pertinent CORBA 2.3 chapters to determine whether the >spec. has changed in this respect, and I >did not find any open issues at the OMG site that match this one. > >Thank you in advance. > >...David > >dzavala@us.ibm.com, 8/553-5628, 1/(507)253-5628 >Java ORB Team -- Component Broker, Websphere Application Server >____________________ >D. A. Zavala >IBM Software Solutions >3605 Highway 52 North >Rochester, MN 55901 > > > > > > ************************************************************** Ed Cobb, Technical Director, Systems Architecture BEA Systems, Inc., 2315 North First St., San Jose, CA 95131 Tel: 408-570-8264 / Fax: 408-570-8910 E-mail: ed.cobb@beasys.com **************************************************************