[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1366?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael Yoder updated TUSCANY-1366:
-----------------------------------
Attachment: TUSCANY-1366.txt
This patch removes the off-spec API from C++ SDO Exception classes. The shift
operator is kept as a global operator. All the SDO existing exceptions were
using a SCA exception serverity level of warning, so SDO to SCA exception
conversion uses this level of severity. In looking at the code reporting
multiple exception contexts (via re-throwing) was never functional (the code to
do so was commented out with crash warnings). Likewise, this code will report
on the initial context where the exception was thrown.
> C++ SDO spec portability: SDORuntimeException off-spec member functions
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TUSCANY-1366
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1366
> Project: Tuscany
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: C++ SDO, C++ Specification
> Affects Versions: Cpp-M3
> Environment: portability issue -- all platforms
> Reporter: Michael Yoder
> Fix For: Cpp-Next
>
> Attachments: TUSCANY-1366.txt
>
>
> Tuscany C++ SDO specification class SDORuntimeException has off-spec member
> functions used by SCA (shown in the e-mail thread below). It would seem that
> for portability these should be taken internal to Tuscany SDO, or submitted
> to the spec committee.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Yoder
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 7:37 PM
> To: '[email protected]'
> Subject: RE: C++ SDO spec compliance/portability: SDORuntimeException
> Thanks Pete,
> Yes, these issues I am putting together and posting came up when doing a
> portability study using HydraSDO to build Tuscany SCA. Since the SDO spec is
> separate from SCA, we were thinking this would be a good goal. That seems to
> mean making them internal to Tuscany SDO or taking them to the committee.
> Michael
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 9:02 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: C++ SDO spec compliance/portability: SDORuntimeException
> Michael,
> An interesting set of questions! I'm not convinced that adding methods to the
> spec api classes is a compliance issue (in fact it may be impossible to
> implement without modifying the spec apis ... constructors etc.) but it could
> be a portability issue if it is not clear that the methods are implementation
> specific.
> The methods below are added so that an SDORuntimeException can contain a
> "stack" of locations indicating where it was thrown/rethrown etc.. These are
> only used within the Tuscany implementation so I guess could be moved to
> protected and make the classes that use them friends?? I'm not sure how
> useful these are anyway but the exception class pre-dates it being used for
> SDORuntimeException.
> There are also methods to allow simple streaming:
> catch(SDORuntimeException& e)
> {
> cout << e;
> }
> I like the simplicity of this but I guess we could write an SDOUtils method
> to do something similar instead.
> I'm not sure if any of these should be mandated by the specification.
> Cheers,
> On 21/06/07, Michael Yoder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The Tuscany SDO C++ class SDORuntimeException has these public member
> > functions which do not appear in the C++ 2.1 specification:
> >
> >
> > SDO_API severity_level getSeverity() const; SDO_API void
> > setSeverity(severity_level sev); SDO_API void setMessageText(const
> > std::string& msg_text); SDO_API void setExceptionLocation(const
> > std::string& file,
> > unsigned long line,
> > const std::string& function="");
> > SDO_API void setLocation(const std::string& file,
> > unsigned long line,
> > const std::string& function="");
> >
> > SDO_API void trace(const std::string& text="%1:\n %3 %4 %2");
> >
> > SDO_API virtual ostream& PrintSelf(ostream &os) const; SDO_API friend
> > ostream& operator<< (ostream &os, const SDORuntimeException &except);
> >
> >
> > What's the rational behind these additional member functions? Would it
> > be appropriate to file a bug to have them removed from the public API?
> > Or alternatively a bug for them to be submitted to the spec committee?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Michael Yoder
> > Software Developer
> > Rogue Wave Software
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> --
> Pete
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
