Agreed, since it won't hurt. -Jack
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Lin Sun <linsun....@gmail.com> 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) > compliance test, we use Geronimo's JTA spec jar as the baseline. > During OSGi RFC 98 compliance test run with an implementation of RFC > 98, OSGi signature test currently checks strictly on exceptions throw > by each of the method to see if it is the same as the baseline's > signature, which is the Geronimo JTA spec jar. If it is not the same > the test fail. For example, below is what is specified by the JTA > java doc and G JTA spec. > > > G JTA spec jar - Transaction.java > public void commit() > throws HeuristicMixedException, > HeuristicRollbackException, > RollbackException, > SecurityException, > SystemException; > > > JTA 1.1 Java doc - Transaction.java > public void commit() > throws RollbackException, > HeuristicMixedException, > HeuristicRollbackException, > SecurityException, > IllegalStateException, > SystemException > > 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 what is in the > JTA spec and we should be consistent in declaring the unchecked > exceptions (we currently declares the SecurityException but not the > IllegalStateException). > > p.s. if you are interested and have access to, the related discussion > is OSGi alliance can be found here - > https://www.osgi.org/members/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1447 > > Thanks > > Lin >
