• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: SAXException, checked, buy why?
• From: David Megginson <david.megginson@g...>
• Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 22:03:54 -0500
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=uc+8j/W08ptIkPx+ebTHolVC95Unq9socWTYttmVoV0J91CdJFCEGrl7wAtuJnFu8+6LNi5/iHpbC52u2XpjllpA73uY5NfqcRuKH92letHv/npZWzpNon8uNgs8I6jHEm7AezPULwINF5VQ06L5qcTpAElrz247XD04OduqkTM=
• In-reply-to: <20050102004220.GA25911@m...>
• References: <20050102004220.GA25911@m...>
• Reply-to: David Megginson <david.megginson@g...>

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 19:42:20 -0500, Alan Gutierrez
<alan-xml-dev@e...> wrote:

>     What was the thinking behind making SAXException a checked
>     exception?

We talked about a few different strategies -- having all of the
callbacks throw Exception, having SAXException extend
RuntimeException, and having SAXException as a distinct base type.  
No one less than James Gosling got in touch with me through an
intermediary to argue against throwing Exception.  RuntimeException
was generally felt not to be the Java way (after all, IOException is
checked, and XML parsing is a kind of IO).

My single greatest regret about SAX, and one that I can never fix
without breaking backwards compatibility, is not having SAXException
extend IOException.  I originally wanted to, but was too easily talked
out of it.


All the best,


David

-- 
http://www.megginson.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SAXException, checked, buy why?
    • From: Alan Gutierrez <alan-xml-dev@e...>

• References:
  • SAXException, checked, buy why?
    • From: Alan Gutierrez <alan-xml-dev@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXML)
• Next by Date: Re: SAX and parallel processing
• Previous by thread: SAXException, checked, buy why?
• Next by thread: Re: SAXException, checked, buy why?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread