> This makes it an easy call -- "throws IOException". APIs should
> never declare "throws Exception" except maybe in the earliest stage
> of coming up with the exception model. And in this case,
> "IOException" is how any code doing I/O will already throw
> exceptions; no need to for more.
If I did so, I would need to define the semantics of an IOException
within SAX and then require other languages to implement it exactly
the same way as Java (so that, say, a Python or C++ implementation
could throw an IOException that a Java implementation could catch).
It is not acceptable that a SAX implementation on one platform would
have to know the programming language of a SAX implementation on
another.
> By the way, the names "ByteStream" and "CharacterStream" imply
> they're good for writing too. Far preferable to say "InputStream"
> and "Reader". I/O in languages other than Java should obey those
> languages' rules, as (and when) the SAX models are translated to
> them.
This is a good point, but I don't like the lack of symmetry and
transparency in "InputStream" and "Reader". We could use something
like "ByteReader" and "CharacterReader", or "ByteInputStream" and
"CharacterInputStream" -- there are still a couple of days for
suggestions.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson ak117@freenet.carleton.ca
Microstar Software Ltd. dmeggins@microstar.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)