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
Affects Versions: Cpp-M3
Environment: portability issue -- all platforms
Reporter: Michael Yoder
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: 'tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org'
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: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
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]
