[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes

• To: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>
• Subject: Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
• From: Mike Fitzgerald <mikefz@w...>
• Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 11:14:08 -0700
• Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>, "SAX Developers' List" <sax-devel@l...>
• In-reply-to: <4048BDA9.3010802@a...>
• References: <40488A7C.90003@a...> <p06010202bc6e524db87c@[192.168.254.4]> <4048BDA9.3010802@a...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)

David Megginson wrote:
>> Letting it go either way is the real problem.
> 
> Noted.  What does everyone else think?

As ERH said, letting users clean up after their own exceptions just makes sense.

 > I see no text that indicates a user thrown exception should ever be passed to 
 > the ErrorHandler. Should endDocument be called even in the event of a
 > user-thrown exception? I suspect not. The user threw it. Let them clean up
 > after it.

And Karl's comment begs an answer, at least in my mind:

 > I would phrase it this way:
 > Case 1) There is no fatal error and no exceptions.
 > Case 2) Fatal error, no exception.
 > Case 3) Exception thrown.
 >
 > All three cases should have a defined, non-optional, behaviour,
 > but only in case 1) does this seem clear at this point.

That is, are there defined behaviors for cases 2 and 3?

Mike

• References:
  • SAX/Java Proposed Changes
    • From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>
  • Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
    • From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
• Next by Date: Re: Re: [Sax-devel] Re: SAX/Java ProposedChanges
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
• Next by thread: Re: SAX/Java Proposed Changes
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread