[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of Clustering on JBoss (Clusters/JBoss)] - Re: Solution of JBREM-954 and ramifications into UnifiedInvo

[galder.zamarreno@jboss.com]

"ron.sigal at jboss.com" wrote : Is there any reason to prefer one solution over the other?  One could argue that an interruptible EJB or JMS client *should* declare that it throws an InterruptedException, but that discussion might be more theological than technical.  

[theological] EJB business interface methods should not have to declare IE just because the underlying library can be interrupted. You could use plain RMI that does not require interface methods to declare InterruptedException but they do need to declare RemoteException. Then again, plain RMI is neither performant and nor flexible, which is why we created Remoting or Pooled Invoker...etc :)

"ron.sigal at jboss.com" wrote : I'm leaning towards wrapping in RuntimeExceptions, which seems more straightforward and avoids the UndeclaredThrowableException  problem.

Sounds fine to me :).

"ron.sigal at jboss.com" wrote : There's one more concern.  Suppose a Remoting user detected the InterruptedException possibility and their code looks for InterruptedExceptions wrapped in CannotConnectExceptions.  Then replacing CannotConnectExceptions with RuntimeExceptions might break their code.  I'm leaning towards
  | 
  | 1. for Remoting 2.2.2.SP8
  | 
  | a) leaving the current behavior in place as the default behavior, and
  | 
  | b) making the new behavior a configurable alternative.

+1

"ron.sigal at jboss.com" wrote : 2. for Remoting 2.4.0, replacing the current behavior with the new behavior.
  | 
  | Now WDYT?

+1 as well.

I might a test on the AS side that replicates this and see how assert that the correct thing is being thrown back to the client and whether the client can make further invocations. I'd probably use some mocking for this.

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4146597#4146597

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4146597