On Sep 17, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
What do you think of adding the missing unchecked exception
"IllegalStateException" back to our JTA spec and release a newer
version of the JTA spec jar just to be the same as what is in the Java
doc? I think it is good for us to be consistent with
Thanks. If there is no objection by end of Sunday, I'll start this
work earlier next week.
Lin
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Jack Cai wrote:
> Agreed, since it won't hurt.
>
> -Jack
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Recently, I opened GERONIMO-4683 in G ab
Agreed, since it won't hurt.
-Jack
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Lin Sun wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Recently, I opened GERONIMO-4683 in G about the Transaction.commit
> signature is missing the IllegalStateException. The reason why I
> raised this JIRA is because in OSGi RFC 98 (Transaction in OSGi)
Hi,
Recently, I opened GERONIMO-4683 in G about the Transaction.commit
signature is missing the IllegalStateException. The reason why I
raised this JIRA is because in OSGi RFC 98 (Transaction in OSGi)
compliance test, we use Geronimo's JTA spec jar as the baseline.
During OSGi RFC 98 compliance t
