[omniORB] Distinguishing COMM_FAILURE - timeout

[Ivanov, Roumen]

I do agree that TRANSIENT makes perfectly sense in case of timeout. I will
reconsider my exception handling.

Thanks again
Roumen

-----Original Message-----
From:	Duncan Grisby [SMTP:dgrisby@uk.research.att.com]
Sent:	Tuesday, October 16, 2001 17:05
To:	omniorb-list@uk.research.att.com
Subject:	Re: [omniORB] Distinguishing COMM_FAILURE - timeout 

On Tuesday 16 October, "Ivanov, Roumen" wrote:

> Thank you, Duncan. I looked at you minor codes but I did not found
anything
> about timeout. Where could I read about the standardized minor codes? 

The standard minor codes are listed at the end of chapter 4, "ORB
Interface", of the CORBA 2.5 spec. Now I look at it, I see that there
aren't any to do with timeouts, so all the codes used by omniORB 4 are
omniORB specific. In fact, omniORB 4 throws TRANSIENT in response to a
timeout.

To see all the codes used in omniORB 4, look at
include/omniORB4/minorCode.h. That makes it clear which are standard
codes and which are ones we've invented.

Cheers,

Duncan.

-- 
 -- Duncan Grisby  \  Research Engineer  --
  -- AT&T Laboratories Cambridge          --
   -- http://www.uk.research.att.com/~dpg1 --


If you have received this e-mail in error or wish to read our e-mail disclaimer statement and monitoring policy, please refer to
http://www.drkw.com/disc/email/ or contact the sender.