W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Catching errors

From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:46:07 -0700
Message-ID: <4828ceec0707111446q5f3fb983yf1cfb22bd955a97d@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

On 7/10/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> I can't think of one, but I'm not sure I've ever used "finally" in a
> Java program either. Given that steps are self-contained, I really
> don't think we need a finally. Though, I suppose someone will raise
> the case of an extension step that opens a database and needs a
> finally to close it.

I am convinced by Rui's arguments for introducing the ability to catch
specific errors and to provide a "finally" block. My arguments are as
follows:

* This doesn't create much burden on those implementing XProc (if
their implementation is based on Java or .NET they may decide to use
the exception mechanism provided by their environment to implement
exceptions in XProc).
* This doesn't increase the verbosity or complexity of pipelines that
don't need those features.
* It provides the mechanisms to handle those cases where they are necessary.
* In general, I think there is much to be gained in following design
patterns common in other popular languages or environments: people are
already familiar with those concepts and will come to expect those
when looking at a new "programming language".

Alex
-- 
Orbeon Forms - Web 2.0 Forms, open-source, for the Enterprise
http://www.orbeon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2007 21:46:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:53 GMT