Issue 3523: PortableInterceptor::ForwardRequest vs PortableServer::ForwardRequest (interceptors-rtf) Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Russell Butek, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: We have two exceptions in CORBA that look almost identical: PortableInterceptor::ForwardRequest and PortableServer::ForwardRequest. We did not want the PortableInterceptor module to depend on PortableServer so we made our own version of the exception. This new version added "boolean permanent" to the exception which does not exist in the PortableServer version. But a thread of discussion now exists in interop@omg.org to determine whether LOCATION_FORWARD_PERM should be deprecated. If it IS deprecated, then the two versions of ForwardRequest will be identical. If that occurs, would it make sense to combine the two exceptions into one exception located outside of either module? Or should we just leave it as is? Resolution: Keep the exceptions as they are. Close issue. Revised Text: Actions taken: March 30, 2000: received issue January 9, 2001: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== From: butek@us.ibm.com X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMUS To: interceptors-ftf@omg.org, issues@omg.org Message-ID: <852568B2.007981C9.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:58:44 -0600 Subject: PortableInterceptor::ForwardRequest vs PortableServer: :ForwardRequest Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: W^ To: butek@us.ibm.com Cc: interceptors-ftf@omg.org, issues@omg.org Subject: Re: PortableInterceptor::ForwardRequest vs PortableServer: :ForwardRequest Message-ID: <20000330200018.E6346@ooc.com> References: <852568B2.007981C9.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <852568B2.007981C9.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: V > > We have two exceptions in CORBA that look almost identical: > PortableInterceptor::ForwardRequest and > PortableServer::ForwardRequest. We > did not want the PortableInterceptor module to depend on > PortableServer so > we made our own version of the exception. This new version added > "boolean > permanent" to the exception which does not exist in the > PortableServer > version. But a thread of discussion now exists in interop@omg.org > to > determine whether LOCATION_FORWARD_PERM should be deprecated. If it > IS > deprecated, then the two versions of ForwardRequest will be > identical. If > that occurs, would it make sense to combine the two exceptions into > one > exception located outside of either module? Or should we just leave > it as > is? I don't think this is a good idea. First of all if we merge the two exceptions into a common exception then we're going to break existing client code for servant locators since the name of the exception is now different (ie: it's not PortableServer::ForwardRequest any more). If we have the interceptors use the PortableServer exception then we're introduced an unwanted dependency on the PortableServer module. In either case I see no compelling reason to merge this. Anyway, it doesn't bother me too much that there are two exceptions since they are from quite different user-space. That is the PortableServer::ForwardRequest exception is typically used by end-users. However, I don't expect interceptors to be written every-day -- so the user-group is somewhat different... > Russell Butek > butek@us.ibm.com Regards, Matthew -- Matthew Newhook E-Mail: mailto:matthew@ooc.com Software Designer WWW: http://www.ooc.com Object Oriented Concepts, Inc. Phone: (709) 738-3725 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:28:05 -0800 From: Jishnu Mukerji X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: interceptors-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: PortableInterceptor::ForwardRequest vs PortableServer: :ForwardRequest References: <852568B2.007981C9.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com> <20000330200018.E6346@ooc.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: ZOOe9P\1!!K:[!!G,^d9 Matthew Newhook wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 03:58:44PM -0600, butek@us.ibm.com wrote: > > > > > > We have two exceptions in CORBA that look almost identical: > > PortableInterceptor::ForwardRequest and PortableServer::ForwardRequest. We > > did not want the PortableInterceptor module to depend on PortableServer so > > we made our own version of the exception. This new version added "boolean > > permanent" to the exception which does not exist in the PortableServer > > version. But a thread of discussion now exists in interop@omg.org to > > determine whether LOCATION_FORWARD_PERM should be deprecated. If it IS > > deprecated, then the two versions of ForwardRequest will be identical. If > > that occurs, would it make sense to combine the two exceptions into one > > exception located outside of either module? Or should we just leave it as > > is? > > I don't think this is a good idea. > > First of all if we merge the two exceptions into a common exception > then we're going to break existing client code for servant locators > since the name of the exception is now different (ie: it's not > PortableServer::ForwardRequest any more). > > If we have the interceptors use the PortableServer exception then we're > introduced an unwanted dependency on the PortableServer module. > > In either case I see no compelling reason to merge this. > > Anyway, it doesn't bother me too much that there are two exceptions > since they are from quite different user-space. That is the > PortableServer::ForwardRequest exception is typically used by end-users. > However, I don't expect interceptors to be written every-day -- so the > user-group is somewhat different... > I agree completely with Matthew on this one. Let us just let things be as they are. Jishnu. From: butek@us.ibm.com X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMUS To: interceptors-ftf@omg.org Message-ID: <852568B3.00495458.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:12:28 -0600 Subject: Re: PortableInterceptor::ForwardRequest vs PortableServer: :ForwardRequest Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: fCp!!Xej!!@ba!!Z3L!! I agree with both of you. I just recall that some concern was voiced over having 2 nearly identical exceptions. If there is still some concern, we should address it here. If we can close this issue with no action, all the better. Russell Butek butek@us.ibm.com Jishnu Mukerji on 03/30/2000 07:28:05 PM To: interceptors-ftf@omg.org cc: Subject: Re: PortableInterceptor::ForwardRequest vs PortableServer: :ForwardRequest Matthew Newhook wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 03:58:44PM -0600, butek@us.ibm.com wrote: > > > > > > We have two exceptions in CORBA that look almost identical: > > PortableInterceptor::ForwardRequest and PortableServer::ForwardRequest. We > > did not want the PortableInterceptor module to depend on PortableServer so > > we made our own version of the exception. This new version added "boolean > > permanent" to the exception which does not exist in the PortableServer > > version. But a thread of discussion now exists in interop@omg.org to > > determine whether LOCATION_FORWARD_PERM should be deprecated. If it IS > > deprecated, then the two versions of ForwardRequest will be identical. If > > that occurs, would it make sense to combine the two exceptions into one > > exception located outside of either module? Or should we just leave it as > > is? > > I don't think this is a good idea. > > First of all if we merge the two exceptions into a common exception > then we're going to break existing client code for servant locators > since the name of the exception is now different (ie: it's not > PortableServer::ForwardRequest any more). > > If we have the interceptors use the PortableServer exception then we're > introduced an unwanted dependency on the PortableServer module. > > In either case I see no compelling reason to merge this. > > Anyway, it doesn't bother me too much that there are two exceptions > since they are from quite different user-space. That is the > PortableServer::ForwardRequest exception is typically used by end-users. > However, I don't expect interceptors to be written every-day -- so the > user-group is somewhat different... > I agree completely with Matthew on this one. Let us just let things be as they are. Jishnu.