W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom-ts@w3.org > December 2003

RE: X-Hive LS implementation report

From: Sander Bos <sander@x-hive.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:24:44 +0100
Message-ID: <41D11F414A26E942912B7E7696DC8E228482F1@JAKARTA.xhive.archipel>
To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Cc: "Jeroen van Rotterdam" <jeroen@x-hive.com>

Dear Curt,

> HasFeature04 and HasFeature05 will be modified to only be applicable 
> when hasFeature("Core", "3.0") is true.  GetFeature02 already 
> had that 
> precondition.

I am not sure what is going on here now. I now have as HasFeature04.xml:

<test xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/DOM-Test-Suite/Level-3"
    <creator>Curt Arnold</creator>
    <description>Implementations should return true for
hasFeature("+lS", "3.0").</description>
	<date qualifier="created">2003-12-09</date>
	<!--  DOMImplementation.hasFeature  -->
  <!--  + on feature names requires L3 Core   -->
  <hasFeature name="Core" version='"3.0"'/>
  <var name="domImpl" type="DOMImplementation"/>
  <var name="hasLS" type="boolean"/>
  <implementation var="domImpl"/>
  <hasFeature var="hasLS" obj="domImpl" feature='"+lS"'
  <assertTrue actual="hasLS" id="hasFeature_LS3"/>

But the generated Java-test is essentially:

   public void runTest() throws Throwable {
      DOMImplementation domImpl;
      boolean hasLS;
      domImpl = getImplementation();
      hasLS = domImpl.hasFeature("+lS", "3.0");
assertTrue("hasFeature_LS3", hasLS);

So why am I not seeing from <hasFeature name="Core" version='"3.0"'/>?
Am I not up to date with something, I did a CVS update on whole
DOM-Test-Suite just now, but I do not grab the spec-jars and zips every
time, is that necessary (I would think not, isn't all of this processed
in test-to-java.xsl)?

Could you check in your version whether anything from <hasFeature
name="Core" version='"3.0"'/> is present in the Java-code? (I also do
not know what to expect, does it call return; to end the test?)

Anyway, for whatever reason those checks for Core/3 are not processed by
us now.

> >   Issue      : throws FileNotFoundException in stead of reporting to
> >                the Error Handler
> >   Resolution : We will change our implementation in such a 
> way that our
> >
> >                default error handler will throw the 
> exception. The test
> >
> >                will have to set a null error handler to 
> support this !
> >
> >  
> >
> Andrew Clover 
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2003OctDec/0077.h
> tml) also 
> implemented his Python L&S where parse failures threw IO and similar 
> exceptions.  The spec doesn't give a huge guideance on the 
> reporting of 
> error conditions, the current scheme of swallowing exceptions and 
> returning null in the Java implementations is compelled by method 
> signature in the Java binding prohibiting throwing checked exceptions 
> other than DOMException.
> Instead of immediately conforming to the other Java 
> implementations, I'd 
> hold off until we address this issue.  Could you describe the 
> exceptions 
> you are throwing?  

I am also holding off improving the errors in those test until I am sure
it is not being altered. We're throwing all kinds of exceptions, wrapped
in a (temporary code!) DOMException. Our first implementation was based
on a spec-version where e.g. the parse-methods could just throw any

> Could you formulate a proposal for changes to L&S 
> where parse failures are signalled by exception when not 
> suppressed by 
> the error handlers?  I think it would probably involve 
> deriving DOMError 
> off "Exception" and ideally having a innerException member 
> that could be 
> a platform exception like an IOException.

What follows is for a large part my personal opinion and not necessarily
that of my employer:

Jeroen told me that this thing was discussed at length in the working
group, with the current solution being errors are swallowed unless error
handler, so there is little chance of changing it. And the reason is
apparently that there can be so many different errors, and you don't
want to specify them all in the spec (apparently it is not necessary to
specify all possible errors that can be sent to the error handler).

I understand the issue, but cannot agree with the resolution. As I
mentioned before
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2003OctDec/0057.html) I
fully agree with Andrew that from an (beginning) application programmer
perspective it is not understandable that
  Document willThisBeNull =
will not give an error, where most other things in Java will give
exceptions (like opening a file-stream). I do some of X-Hive/DB's
technical support, and I do not think that this is supportable.

Fortunately, there is a loophole in the spec, which allows me to set a
default error handler. So we are just going to set that, with an
implementation like:
  public boolean handleError(DOMError error) {
    if (error.getSeverity() != DOMError.SEVERITY_WARNING) {
      if (error.getRelatedException() != null) {
        Throwable wrappedException = (Throwable)
        if (wrappedException instanceof Error) {
          throw (Error) wrappedException;
        } else if (wrappedException instanceof RuntimeException) {
          throw (RuntimeException) wrappedException;
        } else {
          // Cannot throw it directly, so wrap it
          throw new XhiveException(XhiveException.LS_ERROR,
wrappedException, wrappedException.getMessage());
      } else {
        String message = error.getMessage();
        if (error.getType() != null) {
          message = message + "(type: " + error.getType() + ")";
        throw new XhiveException(XhiveException.LS_ERROR, message);
    return true;
(I thought I would include it to show how elegant this thing can be if
handleError has no throws declaration).

Then we are in compliance, and our users will get some feedback (and can
always set another error handler if they don't like this one). Only, as
Jeroen indicated, the tests that are checking for errors will have to
explicitly set the error-handler to null if they don't set it to
anything else.

So perhaps not so much ranting in the end, but that is only because I
did not bring up WG email feedback....


> >6. DOMInputSourceTest5 
> I've already rewritten it.

Our mistake, we did test with the rewritten version but did not adjust
the comment in the mail (it still fails, but now because of an issue
with the base system id not being set that I have not investigated
further yet).

Kind regards,

Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2003 08:24:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:06 UTC