Issue 3561: Wrong minor code specified in Chapter 13 (interop) Source: Micro Focus (Dr. Jishnu Mukerji, jishnu(at)microfocus.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: In document ptc/00-03-02 on page 13-30 in the last bullet on that page it says: "If a system exception is raised , it shall be BAD_PARAM with an OMG standard minor code of 1". This cannot be right because the OMG standard minor code of 1 for BAD_PARAM is assigned to "failure to register, unregister or lookup value factory." I recommend that we change this minor code to a new one that is properly allocated with the associated text that reads something like: "Service context not understood". I am still wondering though why BAD_PARAM is the correct exception to raise. Wouldn't BAD_CONTEXT be more appropriate? In any case we have to change the minor code, even if we cannot make up our minds about which exception. Resolution: resolved and closed Revised Text: n 13.6.8 Object Service context, bullet before Table 13-2, change: " The service context is not in the OMG-defined range: The receiving ORB may choose to ignore it, process it if it “understands” it, or raise a system exception, however it must be passed on through a bridge. If a system exception is raised, it shall be BAD_PARAM with an OMG standard minor code of 1 " to : " The service context is not in the OMG-defined range: The receiving ORB may choose to ignore it, or process it if it “understands” it, however the service context must be passed on through a bridge and must be made available to interceptors. " Actions taken: April 14, 2000: received issue October 4, 2000: closed issue Discussion: Proposed Resolution: Since no one could have properly implemented the correct minor code for this exception, elimination of the ability to throw exception is a better resolution. End of Annotations:===== Sender: jis@fpk.hp.com Message-ID: <38F63F8B.31067817@fpk.hp.com> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:43:39 -0400 From: Jishnu Mukerji Organization: Hewlett-Packard EIAL X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; U; HP-UX B.10.10 9000/777) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: interop@omg.org, issues@omg.org Subject: Wrong minor code specified in Chapter 13 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: /2g!!OX^d93'[d9'jUd9 In document ptc/00-03-02 on page 13-30 in the last bullet on that page it says: "If a system exception is raised , it shall be BAD_PARAM with an OMG standard minor code of 1". This cannot be right because the OMG standard minor code of 1 for BAD_PARAM is assigned to "failure to register, unregister or lookup value factory." I recommend that we change this minor code to a new one that is properly allocated with the associated text that reads something like: "Service context not understood". I am still wondering though why BAD_PARAM is the correct exception to raise. Wouldn't BAD_CONTEXT be more appropriate? In any case we have to change the minor code, even if we cannot make up our minds about which exception. Jishnu. Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:56:54 +1000 (EST) From: Michi Henning To: Jishnu Mukerji cc: interop@omg.org, issues@omg.org Subject: Re: Wrong minor code specified in Chapter 13 In-Reply-To: <38F63F8B.31067817@fpk.hp.com> Message-ID: Organization: Object Oriented Concepts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: )VF!!Wl'e9$o;e9&oG!! On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Jishnu Mukerji wrote: > I recommend that we change this minor code to a new one that is properly allocated with the > associated text that reads something like: "Service context not understood". I am still wondering > though why BAD_PARAM is the correct exception to raise. Wouldn't BAD_CONTEXT be more appropriate? I think the intent of BAD_CONTEXT was to indicate a bad IDL context, rather than a bad service context. Cheers, Michi. -- Michi Henning +61 7 3891 5744 Object Oriented Concepts +61 4 1118 2700 (mobile) Suite 4, 904 Stanley St +61 7 3891 5009 (fax) East Brisbane 4169 michi@ooc.com.au AUSTRALIA http://www.ooc.com.au/staff/michi-henning.html From: Paul Kyzivat To: interop@omg.org Subject: RE: Wrong minor code specified in Chapter 13 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 19:14:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: MB1!!`g7!!A%8e971)e9 > From: Jishnu Mukerji [mailto:jis@fpk.hp.com] > I recommend that we change this minor code to a new one that > is properly allocated with the > associated text that reads something like: "Service context > not understood". I am still wondering > though why BAD_PARAM is the correct exception to raise. > Wouldn't BAD_CONTEXT be more appropriate? Well, I think BAD_CONTEXT was intended to apply to the other kind of context (the kind in IDL that nobody uses). But I would certainly be happy to see us decide such an obscure and unpopular feature doesn't deserve its own system exception and reuse it for something worthwhile. > > In any case we have to change the minor code, even if we > cannot make up our minds about which exception. Well, if we changed the exception we wouldn't need to change the minor code. :-) Paul Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 09:45:08 +1000 (EST) From: Michi Henning To: Paul Kyzivat cc: interop@omg.org Subject: RE: Wrong minor code specified in Chapter 13 In-Reply-To: <9B164B713EE9D211B6DC0090273CEEA926BDDF@bos1.noblenet.com> Message-ID: Organization: Object Oriented Concepts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: #MY!!-+@e9Neod9F5^d9 On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > Well, I think BAD_CONTEXT was intended to apply to the other > kind of context (the kind in IDL that nobody uses). But I would > certainly be happy to see us decide such an obscure and unpopular > feature doesn't deserve its own system exception and reuse it > for something worthwhile. We could update the description of the exception to apply to both kinds of contexts. Maybe a minor code to give more detail? For the IDL context clause, there really is only one applicable minor code anyway, namely, one to indicate that one of the context variables expected by the operation wasn't there. > > In any case we have to change the minor code, even if we > > cannot make up our minds about which exception. > > Well, if we changed the exception we wouldn't need to change > the minor code. :-) Right. And, dare I say it, we could also remove IDL context clauses. But I believe that suggestion met massive resistance last time... ;-) Cheers, Michi. From: urs.kuenzler@ubs.com Disposition-Notification-To: urs.kuenzler@ubs.com X-OpenMail-Hops: 2 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:46:12 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Wrong minor code specified in Chapter 13 MIME-Version: 1.0 TO: interop@omg.org Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.TXT" ;Creation-Date="Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:46:12 +0200" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII ;Creation-Date="Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:46:12 +0200" X-UIDL: l4&e9G\L!!K#Rd9 On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > > > Well, I think BAD_CONTEXT was intended to apply to the other > > kind of context (the kind in IDL that nobody uses). But I would > > certainly be happy to see us decide such an obscure and unpopular > > feature doesn't deserve its own system exception and reuse it > > for something worthwhile. > > We could update the description of the exception to apply to > both kinds > of contexts. Maybe a minor code to give more detail? For the > IDL context > clause, there really is only one applicable minor code anyway, > namely, > one to indicate that one of the context variables expected by > the operation > wasn't there. > > > > In any case we have to change the minor code, even if we > > > cannot make up our minds about which exception. > > > > Well, if we changed the exception we wouldn't need to change > > the minor code. :-) > > Right. And, dare I say it, we could also remove IDL context > clauses. But > I believe that suggestion met massive resistance last time... ;-) > > Cheers, > > Michi. > > From: butek@us.ibm.com X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMUS To: interop@omg.org Message-ID: <852568C1.0047D866.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 07:55:41 -0500 Subject: RE: Wrong minor code specified in Chapter 13 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: nQfd9dl1!!1HW!!Rm+e9 Thanks for pointing this out! This is also a problem for interceptors. If some new interceptor were written, say for logging, that passed service contexts, the ORB would certainly not recognize that service context, but the interceptor will, and the interceptor would probably even expect it. So I'll have to write an issue for this. I assume I should direct the issue to interceptors-ftf. Does anyone here feel that I should direct it to interop instead? Russell Butek butek@us.ibm.com urs.kuenzler@ubs.com on 04/14/2000 01:46:12 AM To: interop@omg.org cc: Subject: RE: Wrong minor code specified in Chapter 13 Why does it make sense at all to allow an ORB to throw an exception if it finds a service context it does not "understand"? This is not very helpful for interoperability. Would a sending ORB have to handle this exception and resend the same request without context to allow to interoperate with an ORB throwing BAD_PARAM in this case? If an unknown service context is sent with a reply, the receiving ORB would throw BAD_PARAM at the caller (even if it got a valid reply). The originator of the service context wouldn't even know. thanx, regards urs kuenzler > On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > > > Well, I think BAD_CONTEXT was intended to apply to the other > > kind of context (the kind in IDL that nobody uses). But I would > > certainly be happy to see us decide such an obscure and unpopular > > feature doesn't deserve its own system exception and reuse it > > for something worthwhile. > > We could update the description of the exception to apply to > both kinds > of contexts. Maybe a minor code to give more detail? For the > IDL context > clause, there really is only one applicable minor code anyway, namely, > one to indicate that one of the context variables expected by > the operation > wasn't there. > > > > In any case we have to change the minor code, even if we > > > cannot make up our minds about which exception. > > > > Well, if we changed the exception we wouldn't need to change > > the minor code. :-) > > Right. And, dare I say it, we could also remove IDL context > clauses. But > I believe that suggestion met massive resistance last time... ;-) > > Cheers, > > Michi. > > Sender: szhkg9@charon1.flur.zuerich.ubs.ch Message-ID: <38F73407.5F15335@ubs.com> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:06:47 +0200 From: Urs Kuenzler Organization: UBS AG X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: interop@omg.org, urs.kuenzler@ubs.com Subject: RE: Wrong minor code specified in Chapter 13 References: <852568C1.0047D866.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------929886E8CE7A4434C2DE6998" X-UIDL: ~3""!2pAe97I-!!~<0!! I'd like to see it as an interoperability issue because it affects interoperability in general and should be solved for CORBA 2.4. Since it is also an interceptor issue, raising it in the interceptor-ftf is certainly an option too. thanx, regards urs kuenzler butek@us.ibm.com wrote: > > Thanks for pointing this out! This is also a problem for > interceptors. If > some new interceptor were written, say for logging, that passed > service > contexts, the ORB would certainly not recognize that service > context, but > the interceptor will, and the interceptor would probably even expect > it. > > So I'll have to write an issue for this. I assume I should direct > the > issue to interceptors-ftf. Does anyone here feel that I should > direct it > to interop instead? > > Russell Butek > butek@us.ibm.com > > urs.kuenzler@ubs.com on 04/14/2000 01:46:12 AM > > To: interop@omg.org > cc: > Subject: RE: Wrong minor code specified in Chapter 13 > > Why does it make sense at all to allow an ORB to throw an exception > if it > finds > a service context it does not "understand"? This is not very helpful > for > interoperability. Would a sending ORB have to handle this exception > and > resend > the same request without context to allow to interoperate with an > ORB > throwing > BAD_PARAM in this case? If an unknown service context is sent with a > reply, > the > receiving ORB would throw BAD_PARAM at the caller (even if it got a > valid > reply). The originator of the service context wouldn't even know. > > thanx, regards > urs kuenzler > > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > > > > > Well, I think BAD_CONTEXT was intended to apply to the other > > > kind of context (the kind in IDL that nobody uses). But I would > > > certainly be happy to see us decide such an obscure and > unpopular > > > feature doesn't deserve its own system exception and reuse it > > > for something worthwhile. > > > > We could update the description of the exception to apply to > > both kinds > > of contexts. Maybe a minor code to give more detail? For the > > IDL context > > clause, there really is only one applicable minor code anyway, > namely, > > one to indicate that one of the context variables expected by > > the operation > > wasn't there. > > > > > > In any case we have to change the minor code, even if we > > > > cannot make up our minds about which exception. > > > > > > Well, if we changed the exception we wouldn't need to change > > > the minor code. :-) > > > > Right. And, dare I say it, we could also remove IDL context > > clauses. But > > I believe that suggestion met massive resistance last time... ;-) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Michi. > > > > [] urs.kuenzler.vcf From: butek@us.ibm.com X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMUS To: Urs Kuenzler cc: interop@omg.org Message-ID: <852568C1.00567893.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 10:35:26 -0500 Subject: RE: Wrong minor code specified in Chapter 13 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: multipart/mixed; Boundary="0__=hT0ymL1ID0YKlagR6yWgsskfLOpy2jZrwXaku5oFI9hDx1XVm3vY25wZ" X-UIDL: ((m!!U7Zd9lX_!!mlOe9 If this were an interceptor-ftf issue, then it wouldn't be put in place until interceptors go in - 3.0? If this were an interop issue, it could get into 2.4. Is it worth forcing into 2.4 or can it just go in with interceptors. Russell Butek butek@us.ibm.com Urs Kuenzler on 04/14/2000 10:06:47 AM To: interop@omg.org, urs.kuenzler@ubs.com cc: Subject: RE: Wrong minor code specified in Chapter 13 I'd like to see it as an interoperability issue because it affects interoperability in general and should be solved for CORBA 2.4. Since it is also an interceptor issue, raising it in the interceptor-ftf is certainly an option too. thanx, regards urs kuenzler butek@us.ibm.com wrote: > > Thanks for pointing this out! This is also a problem for interceptors. If > some new interceptor were written, say for logging, that passed service > contexts, the ORB would certainly not recognize that service context, but > the interceptor will, and the interceptor would probably even expect it. > > So I'll have to write an issue for this. I assume I should direct the > issue to interceptors-ftf. Does anyone here feel that I should direct it > to interop instead? > > Russell Butek > butek@us.ibm.com > > urs.kuenzler@ubs.com on 04/14/2000 01:46:12 AM > > To: interop@omg.org > cc: > Subject: RE: Wrong minor code specified in Chapter 13 > > Why does it make sense at all to allow an ORB to throw an exception if it > finds > a service context it does not "understand"? This is not very helpful for > interoperability. Would a sending ORB have to handle this exception and > resend > the same request without context to allow to interoperate with an ORB > throwing > BAD_PARAM in this case? If an unknown service context is sent with a reply, > the > receiving ORB would throw BAD_PARAM at the caller (even if it got a valid > reply). The originator of the service context wouldn't even know. > > thanx, regards > urs kuenzler > > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > > > > > Well, I think BAD_CONTEXT was intended to apply to the other > > > kind of context (the kind in IDL that nobody uses). But I would > > > certainly be happy to see us decide such an obscure and unpopular > > > feature doesn't deserve its own system exception and reuse it > > > for something worthwhile. > > > > We could update the description of the exception to apply to > > both kinds > > of contexts. Maybe a minor code to give more detail? For the > > IDL context > > clause, there really is only one applicable minor code anyway, namely, > > one to indicate that one of the context variables expected by > > the operation > > wasn't there. > > > > > > In any case we have to change the minor code, even if we > > > > cannot make up our minds about which exception. > > > > > > Well, if we changed the exception we wouldn't need to change > > > the minor code. :-) > > > > Right. And, dare I say it, we could also remove IDL context > > clauses. But > > I believe that suggestion met massive resistance last time... ;-) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Michi. > > > > [] urs.kuenzler1.vcf Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:40:01 -0700 From: "M. Mortazavi" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: urs.kuenzler@ubs.com CC: interop@omg.org Subject: Re: Wrong minor code specified in Chapter 13 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: _39e9==Ne9`cm!!_YT!! Status: U How does one distinguish between the inabilitly (or active refusal) to process a certain type of service context from a failure to process an instance of that type? It also seems to me that this should be of significant interest to the Interceptor FTF. M. urs.kuenzler@ubs.com wrote: > Why does it make sense at all to allow an ORB to throw an exception if it finds > a service context it does not "understand"? This is not very helpful for > interoperability. Would a sending ORB have to handle this exception and resend > the same request without context to allow to interoperate with an ORB throwing > BAD_PARAM in this case? If an unknown service context is sent with a reply, the > receiving ORB would throw BAD_PARAM at the caller (even if it got a valid > reply). The originator of the service context wouldn't even know. > > thanx, regards > urs kuenzler > > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > > > > > Well, I think BAD_CONTEXT was intended to apply to the other > > > kind of context (the kind in IDL that nobody uses). But I would > > > certainly be happy to see us decide such an obscure and unpopular > > > feature doesn't deserve its own system exception and reuse it > > > for something worthwhile. > > > > We could update the description of the exception to apply to > > both kinds > > of contexts. Maybe a minor code to give more detail? For the > > IDL context > > clause, there really is only one applicable minor code anyway, namely, > > one to indicate that one of the context variables expected by > > the operation > > wasn't there. > > > > > > In any case we have to change the minor code, even if we > > > > cannot make up our minds about which exception. > > > > > > Well, if we changed the exception we wouldn't need to change > > > the minor code. :-) > > > > Right. And, dare I say it, we could also remove IDL context > > clauses. But > > I believe that suggestion met massive resistance last time... ;-) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Michi. > > > >