Re: Re: ErrorHandler questions

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 13:26:12 -0500, Karl Waclawek <[email protected]> wrote:

> My reason for posting this message comes from a thread on xml-dev
> called "SAXException, checked, buy why?". One of the problems discussed
> was that ErrorHandler allows error processing without throwing an exception,
> but if ErrorHandler is only legal for the parser to call, then there is
> no *standard* way for the content handler to communicate recoverable
> error events to the application, especially if the content handler
> is not under application control (like in some third-party pipeline).

The pipeline model wasn't fully established until after SAX was, so we
hadn't really considered that problem at the time.  I think the answer
is that ErrorHandler should have been more flexible, but it really was
designed just for parse exceptions.  Perhaps it would be worthwhile
developing an extension handler for recoverable application errors,
but it might be hard to standardize.

How would a third-party content handler in a pipeline get a reference
to the error handler?  I might be missing something obvious.


All the best,


David

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


-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
_______________________________________________
List: sax-devel, [email protected]
See:  http://www.saxproject.org/
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sax-devel