Mailing-List: contact general-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@xml.apache.org
Message-ID: <3ACDF662.22462450@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 10:01:22 -0700
From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: general@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: JDOM in Apache (was Re: xml.apache.org charter proposal)
References: <OF48BBB851.570CB8F0-ON85256A25.00563018@lotus.com>
 <3ACCDD2B.8B0B87F7@us.ibm.com> <3ACE36DE.1A80174C@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Andy Clark wrote:
> 
> Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> > My vote goes for runtime exceptions. I personally don't like static
> > exceptions at all. I think the choice to catch an exception should
> > always be left to the user...
> 
> I disagree. The types of errors that we're talking about are
> not runtime variety of exceptions, they are XML processing
> exceptions.

Not true. In SAX, every event handler can throw a SAXException for
whatever reason. This is used to stop the parser for instance. It
doesn't qualify as an error though.

> I don't see a problem with explicitly declaring
> what exceptions can be thrown and must be caught.

It's annoying. As Scott mentions it ripples through the whole code. I
was looking at this in Xerces2 yesterday when I found that every
XMLEntityScanner method is declared to throw a SAXException just because
they all may end up calling XMLEntityHandler.endEntity() which may throw
one...

> I think
> it's worse when left up to the user.

Why? What's bad in leaving the user the choice?? I thought you,
american, citizen of the "country of liberty", would like that better?
;-)
-- 
Arnaud  Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Strategy Group

---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org