Bug 1059837

Summary:	[GSS] (6.2.x) Remote Naming communication exception should be thrown on ConnectException
Product:	[JBoss] JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 6	Reporter:	Brad Maxwell <bmaxwell>
Component:	Naming	Assignee:	Brad Maxwell <bmaxwell>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	6.2.0	CC:	bmaxwell, cdewolf, jmartisk, smumford, vtunka
Target Milestone:	CR2
Target Release:	EAP 6.2.2
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:	A generic javax.naming.NamingException was being thrown when a java.net.ConnectException occurred instead of the more specific javax.naming.CommunicationException. This change makes it throw a javax.naming.CommunicationException when a connection exception occurs. CommunicationException is a subclass of NamingException, so any code that previously caught a NamingException will still work as expected.	Story Points:	---
Clone Of:	1059836	Environment:
Last Closed:	2014-06-02 12:50:31 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	1059836
Bug Blocks:	1053427

Description Brad Maxwell 2014-01-30 19:11:55 UTC

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1059836 +++

Use right exception type for communication problem , javax.naming.CommunicationException should be thrown instead of javax.naming.NamingException

Comment 1 JBoss JIRA Server 2014-01-30 20:04:27 UTC

Brad Maxwell <bmaxwell> updated the status of jira WFLY-2839 to Resolved

Comment 2 Jan Martiska 2014-03-05 14:54:46 UTC

Done through upgrade to jboss-remote-naming 1.0.8.Final, which is used in EAP 6.2.2.CR2.

Comment 3 Scott Mumford 2014-03-12 22:38:19 UTC

Does this issue require an entry in the EAP 6.2.2 Release Notes?

If so, please populate the details in the Doc Text field to allow ECS to begin drafting a note for it.

Note: "$THING was broken and now $THING is fixed" is not a suitable release note draft.

Comment 4 Jan Martiska 2014-03-24 14:12:21 UTC

Huh, I see that the release note for this was incorporated in the note for #1053426. Therefore this doesn't require any more work.

Comment 5 Scott Mumford 2014-03-24 20:57:23 UTC

Nice catch Jan! I hadn't even realised these were the same thing.
Cheers.