orbitcpp-list

Re: [orbitcpp-list] CORBA and C++ exceptions

[Petter R. <pe...@hu...>]

[Phil Dawes]
> Thanks for the patch, but unfortunately it doesn't compile! 

Yes, I noticed that as well when I testcompiled it.  It was a quick
and dirty version to see how such change would be received.  The
exception part works, but the 'operator<<' needs more work.

> Normally I'm not keen on adding extra functionality to ORBit-C++
> over and above what is in the spec, however in Henning&Vinoski's
> book* they state that an ostream operator for Exceptions is likely
> to be in future revisions of the spec anyway, so I'd be happy to
> accept a working patch for providing this.

My problem is that I do not have the spec, nor a good description on
how CORBA should work in C++.  Do you know of such online
documentation?

> Some other comments:

> Make sure that the standard C++ stuff is prefixed with std:: to
> remain ansi compliant (I don't think g++ checks for this unless you
> give it the right cmd line args)

Sounds reasonable.  What is the cmd line args?

> I'm don't think I'm keen on having CORBA::Exception inherit from
> std::exception. It's not in the spec, and thus it would make
> people's programs behave differently if they port from a compliant
> ORB.

I do not follow you.  If the programs are programmed correctly, they
will not be able to detect the difference.  If I'm not mistaken, the
std::exception class was made to have a common exception class to
inherit from.  Having such toplevel superclass makes a lot of things
easier.

> Thanks again for making the effort to produce the patch; sorry if
> this email sounded a bit critical - that wasn't the intention.

I enjoy getting comments on my suggested changes. :-)

> If you come up with a good ostream operator scheme, I'd be happy to
> update the compiler so that UserExceptions use it as well.

I'll have another look when I find time.  The suggested patch gave me
debug information unavailable with your current implementation and
will probably stay in my copy for time to come. :-)
-- 
##>  Petter Reinholdtsen  <##  |  pe...@td...

Re: [orbitcpp-list] CORBA and C++ exceptions

[Phil D. <ph...@li...>]

Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> 
> [Phil Dawes]
> > Thanks for the patch, but unfortunately it doesn't compile!
> 
> Yes, I noticed that as well when I testcompiled it.  It was a quick
> and dirty version to see how such change would be received.  The
> exception part works, but the 'operator<<' needs more work.
> 
> > Normally I'm not keen on adding extra functionality to ORBit-C++
> > over and above what is in the spec, however in Henning&Vinoski's
> > book* they state that an ostream operator for Exceptions is likely
> > to be in future revisions of the spec anyway, so I'd be happy to
> > accept a working patch for providing this.
> 
> My problem is that I do not have the spec, nor a good description on
> how CORBA should work in C++.  Do you know of such online
> documentation?
> 

You should be able to get the C++ language mapping spec on 
http://www.omg.org/library/clangindx.html

> > Some other comments:
> 
> > Make sure that the standard C++ stuff is prefixed with std:: to
> > remain ansi compliant (I don't think g++ checks for this unless you
> > give it the right cmd line args)
> 
> Sounds reasonable.  What is the cmd line args?
> 

Don't know off hand - It'll be in the gcc info files.

> > I'm don't think I'm keen on having CORBA::Exception inherit from
> > std::exception. It's not in the spec, and thus it would make
> > people's programs behave differently if they port from a compliant
> > ORB.
> 
> I do not follow you.  If the programs are programmed correctly, they
> will not be able to detect the difference.  If I'm not mistaken, the
> std::exception class was made to have a common exception class to
> inherit from.  Having such toplevel superclass makes a lot of things
> easier.

It means that people catching std::exception and handling it would also
catch CORBA::Exceptions, but this wouldn't happen with other CORBA
implementations (the exception would slip through and segfault). 

> 
> > Thanks again for making the effort to produce the patch; sorry if
> > this email sounded a bit critical - that wasn't the intention.
> 
> I enjoy getting comments on my suggested changes. :-)
> 

Cool!

Cheers,

Phil.