> > On 6/3/08, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do we define the processor code? Here are a couple of examples. > > From stax artifact processor. > M read(XMLStreamReader reader) throws ContributionReadException, > XMLStreamException; > > From composite builder > void build(Composite composite) throws CompositeBuilderException; > > I like the idea of saying NEVER throw an exception but this has to be > restricted to well defined processing steps, e.g. those that and extension > writer would author (Read, Write, Resolve). As an alternative and in order > to maintain the current API such exceptions could be captured in the > ExtensibleStAXArtifactProcessor. Hi Simon, Initially our idea was to disable most of the exception throws from the processors and log the warnings/exception via the monitors. Lets say we might still leave some exceptions to be thrown like the type1 exceptions, in such cases me might end up only throwing IOExceptions / XMLStreamExceptions. >From stax artifact processor. M read(XMLStreamReader reader) throws ContributionReadException, XMLStreamException; Here the processor would never throw ContributionReadException, when the exceptions are blocked as most of the ContributionReadException are of type1, 2 or 3. Do you believe we should maintain the current API in such cases? -- Thanks & Regards, Ramkumar Ramalingam
