On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 8:39 AM, ant elder (JIRA) <dev@tuscany.apache.org>wrote:
> > [ > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2845?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12673482#action_12673482] > > ant elder commented on TUSCANY-2845: > ------------------------------------ > > Just to make sure this is clear, the suggestion is for unchecked exceptions > from a service exposed with a jms binding: > > - will be retuned with a JMS Object message > - the Object message will contain a java.lang.RuntimeException > - for SCA clients using a reference with a JMS binding that > RuntimeException would be returned to the client as a > ServiceRuntimeException > > If so that sounds ok to me. > > Not sure about the bit about maybe not even using the reusing a chained > exception's "message", i can understand not returning the chained stacktrace > but there's no harm in returning the message is there and it might make > debugging easier? > > > > > Checked exceptions w/ default JMS wireFormat over <binding.jms> should > serialize fault, not FaultException > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Key: TUSCANY-2845 > > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2845 > > Project: Tuscany > > Issue Type: Bug > > Components: Java SCA JMS Binding Extension > > Reporter: Scott Kurz > > > > I realize the spec doesn't spell this out, but I think the most natural > mapping to say, what we do in <binding.ws> > > would be to serialize the fault to XML and put it in a TextMessage, > assuming that the other side can construct the appropriate > > exception from the fault. > > True this is very JAX-WS-ish, which a straight JMS programmer might not > expect... but what else could we do, use java.lang.Exception somehow? > > Today the checked exc seems to result in the throwing of FaultException, > which will only work if Tuscany is on both sides. > > -- > This message is automatically generated by JIRA. > - > You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. > > Yep, Ok. As unchecked exceptions are not explicitly represented in the interface I see your point. It makes sense to have a general way of dealing with them. If there is information we can return that is generally understandable by the client, e.g. string messages as apposed to SCA specific exception types, we should try and return it. Simon
