Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 6:32 PM +0100 3/7/04, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: >I am sorry, but I disagree. I have a lot of code depending on the >assumption that the invocation of endDocument() indicates that no >errors have been reported. Then your code will break when used with some of today's parsers which do call endDocument() after a fatal error.. :-( >In particular, I see no reason for forcing endDocument(). The >parser application has all information that it requires, because >the simple fact that the parser returns from XMLReader.parse() >(either via return or by throwing an exception) indicates the >same information. > It's a question of where you have that information. It's often convenient to know the document has ended inside the ContentHandler. Not that you can't have the method that calls parse() then call endDocument() inside the ContentHandler, but it's ugly, hard to explain, and error prone. >I wouldn't have a problem, if SAX had always specified this, but >it didn't. > > One of the maintainers claims it did always specify this. One of the maintainers claims it didn't. Honestly, this is a mess; and sooner or later I think we should be pick one path or the other, but maybe not quite yet. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@m... Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003) http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA
|
