- From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:46:07 -0700
- 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 UTC