Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
David Megginson writes: > In the end, though, this is a relatively minor point. The important > point, for me, is that SAXException extend IOException -- I > think that > it would be convenient to have the callbacks throw IOException rather > than SAXException (otherwise, other IOExceptions will have to > tunnel), > but it's not a show-stopper if everyone else thinks it's a bad idea. I'll agree it is a relatively minor point, but if the only reason is "otherwise, other IOExceptions will have to tunnel" then it is a truly horrible idea which at its extreme boils down to 'Lets just throw Exception so that no exceptions are tunneled'. Perhaps there is a more cogent argument to made about it? Regards, Les Hill Senior Architect Excelergy ======================================================= Excelergy is hiring Java/C++ XML developers, all levels send resume (and mention me :) to jobs@e... ======================================================= xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
