Issue 5465: Default UnknownException behavior (java-rtf) Source: Oracle (Dr. Andrew Piper, andyp(at)bea.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: On page 133, bullet 3 reads: • If the CORBA system exception org.omg.CORBA.portable.UnknownException is thrown, then the stub does one of the following: • Translates it to org.omg.CORBA.UNKNOWN. • Translates it to the nested exception that the UnknownException contains. • Passes it on directly to the user. It is unfortunate that there is no recommended default since for RMI-IIOP at least, option (2) is by far to be preferred. I would like to change it therefore to add the text: "In order to preserve RMI semantics ORBs implementing the RMI-IIOP protocol should always translate it to the nested exception that the UnknownException contains" Resolution: Incorporate revised text and close issue Revised Text: Add the following paragraph after the third bullet mentioned above in the summary: In order to preserve RMI semantics ORBs implementing the RMI-IIOP protocol must always translate the UnknownException to the nested exception given by UnknownException.originalEx. Actions taken: July 12, 2002: received issue April 28, 2003: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== X-Sender: andyp@san-francisco.beasys.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:01:20 -0700 To: java-rtf@omg.org From: Andy Piper Subject: Default UnknownException behavior Cc: issues@omg.org, java2idl-rtf@omg.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by emerald.omg.org id g6CGumC03073 On page 133, bullet 3 reads: is thrown, then the stub does one of the following: It is unfortunate that there is no recommended default since for RMI-IIOP at least, option (2) is by far to be preferred. I would like to change it therefore to add the text: "In order to preserve RMI semantics ORBs implementing the RMI-IIOP protocol should always translate it to the nested exception that the UnknownException contains" andy Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:30:29 +0100 From: Simon Nash Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: Andy Piper CC: java-rtf@omg.org, java2idl-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Default UnknownException behavior Andy, I don't think "should" carries much weight in OMG specs. Why not make this a mandatory rule in the Java to IDL mapping spec instead? Simon Andy Piper wrote: > > On page 133, bullet 3 reads: > > > is thrown, then the stub does one of the following: > > > > > It is unfortunate that there is no recommended default since for RMI-IIOP > at least, option (2) is by far to be preferred. I would like to change it > therefore to add the text: > > "In order to preserve RMI semantics ORBs implementing the RMI-IIOP protocol > should always translate it to the nested exception that the > UnknownException contains" > > andy -- Simon C Nash, Chief Technical Officer, IBM Java Technology Hursley Park, Winchester, UK nash@hursley.ibm.com Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999 X-Sender: andyp@san-francisco.beasys.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:37:46 -0700 To: Simon Nash From: Andy Piper Subject: Re: Default UnknownException behavior Cc: java-rtf@omg.org, java2idl-rtf@omg.org At 09:30 PM 7/12/2002 +0100, Simon Nash wrote: I don't think "should" carries much weight in OMG specs. Why not make this a mandatory rule in the Java to IDL mapping spec instead? That's fine with me :) andy X-Sender: andyp@san-francisco.beasys.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:05:12 -0700 To: Simon Nash From: Andy Piper Subject: Re: Default UnknownException behavior Cc: java-rtf@omg.org, java2idl-rtf@omg.org So the new proposal is to change section 1.21.6.3, add this sentence to the end of the 3rd bullet on page 133: "In order to preserve RMI semantics ORBs implementing the RMI-IIOP protocol must always translate it to the nested exception that the UnknownException contains" andy From: Jeffrey Mischkinsky Subject: Re: Default UnknownException behavior To: nash@hursley.ibm.com (Simon Nash) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Cc: andyp@bea.com (Andy Piper), java-rtf@omg.org, java2idl-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] 'Simon Nash' writes: > > Andy, > I don't think "should" carries much weight in OMG specs. Why not make this a > mandatory rule in the Java to IDL mapping spec instead? It carries no weight. It's simply optional. > > Simon > > Andy Piper wrote: > > > > On page 133, bullet 3 reads: > > > > > > > > > > It is unfortunate that there is no recommended default since for > RMI-IIOP > > at least, option (2) is by far to be preferred. I would like to > change it > > therefore to add the text: > > > > "In order to preserve RMI semantics ORBs implementing the RMI-IIOP > protocol > > should always translate it to the nested exception that the > > UnknownException contains" > > > > andy > > -- > Simon C Nash, Chief Technical Officer, IBM Java Technology > Hursley Park, Winchester, UK nash@hursley.ibm.com > Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999 > -- Jeff Mischkinsky jmischki@dcn.davis.ca.us +1 530-758-9850 jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com +1 650-506-1975 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:39:51 +0100 From: Simon Nash Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: Ken Cavanaugh CC: java2idl-rtf@omg.org, java-rtf@omg.org Subject: [Fwd: Default UnknownException behavior] Ken, Are you OK with transferring this issue to the Java to IDL RTF? Simon -- Simon C Nash, Chief Technical Officer, IBM Java Technology Hursley Park, Winchester, UK nash@hursley.ibm.com Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999Received: from mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.56.35]) by sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA147878 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 23:36:22 +0100 Received: from usmailrelay.beasys.com ([63.96.163.34]) by mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA22332 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 23:36:20 +0100 Received: from san-francisco.beasys.com (san-francisco.bea.com [10.32.0.10]) by usmailrelay.beasys.com (Switch-2.2.2/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id g6CMaId04281; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolfe.bea.com (wolfe.beasys.com [172.17.25.176]) by san-francisco.beasys.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA09022; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20020712153728.01cda2d0@san-francisco.beasys.com> X-Sender: andyp@san-francisco.beasys.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:37:46 -0700 To: Simon Nash From: Andy Piper Subject: Re: Default UnknownException behavior Cc: java-rtf@omg.org, java2idl-rtf@omg.org In-Reply-To: <3D2F3C65.5F250B5C@hursley.ibm.com> References: <5.0.0.25.2.20020712095604.01b5ba18@san-francisco.beasys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 At 09:30 PM 7/12/2002 +0100, Simon Nash wrote: I don't think "should" carries much weight in OMG specs. Why not make this a mandatory rule in the Java to IDL mapping spec instead? That's fine with me :) andy X-Sender: andyp@san-francisco.beasys.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 08:49:23 -0700 To: Simon Nash , Ken Cavanaugh From: Andy Piper Subject: Re: [Fwd: Default UnknownException behavior] Cc: java2idl-rtf@omg.org, java-rtf@omg.org At 02:39 PM 7/15/2002 +0100, Simon Nash wrote: Are you OK with transferring this issue to the Java to IDL RTF? Sorry, Simon I missed the point of your earlier mail. If it gets transferred I would still like to see it reflected in the javadoc which originates from the IDL to Java spec. andy Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:38:54 +0100 From: Simon Nash Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: Andy Piper CC: Ken Cavanaugh , java2idl-rtf@omg.org, java-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: Default UnknownException behavior] Andy, The wording of the javadoc is a matter for Sun. If we are changing the rules for how RMI-IIOP handles runtime processing of exceptions, then I think this belongs in the Java to IDL RTF (and spec) and not the IDL to Java RTF. If we are changing how this works for all Java ORBs, then it should be handled in the IDL to Java RTF and spec. Simon Andy Piper wrote: > > At 02:39 PM 7/15/2002 +0100, Simon Nash wrote: > >Are you OK with transferring this issue to the Java to IDL RTF? > > Sorry, Simon I missed the point of your earlier mail. If it gets > transferred I would still like to see it reflected in the javadoc which > originates from the IDL to Java spec. > > andy -- Simon C Nash, Chief Technical Officer, IBM Java Technology Hursley Park, Winchester, UK nash@hursley.ibm.com Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999 X-Sender: andyp@san-francisco.beasys.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:14:27 -0700 To: Simon Nash From: Andy Piper Subject: Re: [Fwd: Default UnknownException behavior] Cc: Ken Cavanaugh , java2idl-rtf@omg.org, java-rtf@omg.org At 05:38 PM 7/15/2002 +0100, Simon Nash wrote: The wording of the javadoc is a matter for Sun. If we are changing the rules for how RMI-IIOP handles runtime processing of exceptions, then I think this belongs in the Java to IDL RTF (and spec) and not the IDL to Java RTF. If we are changing how this works for all Java ORBs, then it should be handled in the IDL to Java RTF and spec. Ok, I'm easy on this. Although I would like to see this for all orbs, if "should" carries no weight then its difficult to see how different options are possible. So I guess handling it in the Java-IDL RTF is ok. However, shouldn't the text in the IDL-Java spec reference this requirement for consistency? andy Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:39:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Ken Cavanaugh Reply-To: Ken Cavanaugh Subject: Re: [Fwd: Default UnknownException behavior] To: ken.cavanaugh@sun.com, nash@hursley.ibm.com Cc: java2idl-rtf@omg.org, java-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.3.5 SunOS 5.7 sun4u sparc >From: Simon Nash >X-Accept-Language: en >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: Ken Cavanaugh >CC: java2idl-rtf@omg.org, java-rtf@omg.org >Subject: [Fwd: Default UnknownException behavior] > >Ken, >Are you OK with transferring this issue to the Java to IDL RTF? > Basically yes, but we will need to see if we need to update p. 133 in the IDL to Java spec as well. However, if we leave the IDL to Java spec as is, and Java to IDL simply requires translation to the nested exception, I think that covers it. Ken. Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 20:21:40 +0100 From: Simon Nash Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: Ken Cavanaugh CC: java2idl-rtf@omg.org, java-rtf@omg.org, andyp@bea.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Default UnknownException behavior] Ken, This is a little tricky. The ORB runtime doesn't know whether it's being called from an RMI-IIOP stub or not, so it would be very difficult to have different runtime rules for the Java to IDL mapping and the IDL to Java mapping. Could we start by putting up for vote in the IDL to Java RTF a proposal that all Java ORBs must do the mapping that Andy has proposed (without any qualification on whether RMI-IIOP is being used). If this passes, that is the end of the story. If it fails, then we need to transfer the issue to the Java to IDL RTF and try to come up with a more complex proposal on how to improve this for RMI-IIOP clients even though the base Java ORB rules permit a variety of behaviors. Simon Ken Cavanaugh wrote: > > >From: Simon Nash > >X-Accept-Language: en > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >To: Ken Cavanaugh > >CC: java2idl-rtf@omg.org, java-rtf@omg.org > >Subject: [Fwd: Default UnknownException behavior] > > > >Ken, > >Are you OK with transferring this issue to the Java to IDL RTF? > > > > Basically yes, but we will need to see if we need to update p. 133 > in the IDL to Java spec as well. However, if we leave the IDL to > Java spec as is, and Java to IDL simply requires translation to the > nested exception, I think that covers it. > > Ken. -- Simon C Nash, Chief Technical Officer, IBM Java Technology Hursley Park, Winchester, UK nash@hursley.ibm.com Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999 Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:38:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Ken Cavanaugh Reply-To: Ken Cavanaugh Subject: Re: [Fwd: Default UnknownException behavior] To: Ken.Cavanaugh@sun.com, nash@hursley.ibm.com Cc: java2idl-rtf@omg.org, java-rtf@omg.org, andyp@bea.com X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.3.5 SunOS 5.7 sun4u sparc >From: Simon Nash >X-Accept-Language: en >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: Ken Cavanaugh >CC: java2idl-rtf@omg.org, java-rtf@omg.org, andyp@bea.com >Subject: Re: [Fwd: Default UnknownException behavior] >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Ken, >This is a little tricky. The ORB runtime doesn't know whether it's >being >called from an RMI-IIOP stub or not, so it would be very difficult to >have >different runtime rules for the Java to IDL mapping and the IDL to >Java >mapping. Could we start by putting up for vote in the IDL to Java >RTF >a proposal that all Java ORBs must do the mapping that Andy has >proposed >(without any qualification on whether RMI-IIOP is being used). If >this >passes, that is the end of the story. If it fails, then we need to >transfer >the issue to the Java to IDL RTF and try to come up with a more >complex >proposal on how to improve this for RMI-IIOP clients even though the >base >Java ORB rules permit a variety of behaviors. > Ok. Is there an OMG issue for this problem yet? I'll put it up for a vote in the next round of votes in the Java RTF. Ken. Subject: Vote 4 To: java-rtf@omg.org, Ken Cavanaugh X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 From: "Ann Dalton1" Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:38:02 +0000 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on d06ml005/06/M/IBM(Release 5.0.9a |January 7, 2002) at 20/11/2002 21:38:32 IBM votes NO to Issue 5465 I think there are problems with this proposal. a. It's unclear whether the additional paragraph requires a change to Stub code or to the ORB runtime. b. It's undesirable, and unnecessary in this case, to differentiate between ORBs which do and do not implement RMI. The rule can, and should, be the same for all Java ORBs. c. It is incorrect to mandate that any ORB must translate the UnknownException to the nested exception because, as the nested exception is defined as a Throwable, this isn't always possible. I think it would be preferable to simply reword Section 1.21.6.3 "Streaming Stub APIs" 3rd main bullet, as follows: - If the CORBA system exception org.omg.CORBA.portable.UnknownException is thrown, the stub translates it to the nested exception that the UnknownException contains, if possible. If this is not possible, the stub passes the UnknownException on directly to the user. IBM votes YES on all other issues in Vote 4, with the amendment to 5694 proposed by Victor Giddings. Ann