patch applied. Thanks!
On 17/08/07, Michael Yoder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I uploaded a patch for TUSCANY-1366. If someone could review and apply > it that would be great. > > Thanks, > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Yoder (JIRA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 8:33 AM > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > Subject: [jira] Updated: (TUSCANY-1366) C++ SDO spec portability: > SDORuntimeException off-spec member functions > > > [ > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1366?page=com.atlassian.ji > ra.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 > > C++ 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: '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] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Pete --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
