I'm just reading around this one - I think I'd be happy with using a custom message processor - so I guess my urgency isn't quite as urgent :)
Cheers, Dave. On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Dave Sowerby <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Ah, my apologises - I forgot to check Jira! >> >> Is there any schedule for a release of the 1.x codebase? Or even a 1.4.1? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dave. >> >> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Dave Sowerby <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hey guys, >> >> >> >> I've just taken a functional binding.jms service and in order to try >> >> and utilise this as a more traditional JMS service, I added the >> >> tuscany:wireFormat.jmsObject markup to the composite file.... >> >> >> >> However, when I attempt to invoke an operation with no parameters I >> >> get the following stack: >> >> >> >> Caused by: java.lang.IllegalStateException: JMS ObjectMessage payload >> >> not Serializable: null >> >> at >> >> >> >> org.apache.tuscany.sca.binding.jms.provider.ObjectMessageProcessor.createJMSMessage(ObjectMessageProcessor.java:63) >> >> at >> >> >> >> org.apache.tuscany.sca.binding.jms.provider.AbstractMessageProcessor.insertPayloadIntoJMSMessage(AbstractMessageProcessor.java:83) >> >> at >> >> >> >> org.apache.tuscany.sca.binding.jms.wireformat.jmsobject.runtime.WireFormatJMSObjectReferenceInterceptor.invokeRequest(WireFormatJMSObjectReferenceInterceptor.java:81) >> >> at >> >> >> >> org.apache.tuscany.sca.binding.jms.wireformat.jmsobject.runtime.WireFormatJMSObjectReferenceInterceptor.invoke(WireFormatJMSObjectReferenceInterceptor.java:63) >> >> at >> >> >> >> org.apache.tuscany.sca.binding.jms.provider.RRBJMSBindingInvoker.invoke(RRBJMSBindingInvoker.java:202) >> >> >> >> This operation has the signature of: >> >> >> >> public void throwException(); >> >> >> >> Looking through the wireformat code I can't see anywhere that it >> >> checks that the payload isn't null before throwing this exception - is >> >> this what we should expect? >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Dave. >> > >> > Hi Dave >> > >> > We came across this and it was fixed in the 1.x codebase under >> > TUSCANY-2799. >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > Simon >> > > > We haven't discussed it yet Dave but we'll have to do something as people > have been making quite a lot of changes in 1.x. Personally I would probably > prefer a 1.5 in a little while. What's your urgency on this one? > > Simon >
