> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Bowditch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Glen Mazza wrote:
> > Personally speaking, I am much more amenable to adding
> > some complexity (LM Makers, for example, or opening up
> > our validation) if it helps out Finn's work, because
> > of the sheer weight of contributions he adds to Fop.
> > (We slow him down, we slow down Fop.)
<snip />
> I'm definitely in agreement with you on this one Glen. Lets keep
> Layout simple whilst its still unfinished.
> Pluggable LMs can be added once we have an
> initial release.

Hi fellas,

Well... (sigh)... well ('nutha sigh)

What *does* Finn think, in that case? So far, I've yet to hear a single
*solid* argument pleading against the proposed change. Of course, something
like LM Makers can be added later on --the proposed AreaFactory shouldn't
hinder that.

All we heard up to here is a few vague concerns about so-called increased
complexity. What?!? It's a plain, simple, basic-as-can-be Factory pattern
for chrissake! It doesn't bite... or does it? Anyone?

All right, all right, maybe I'll just 'agree to disagree' in this case ;-)
--mind you, *not* WRT to Exceptions, though... I declined to further the
debate, but I'd much rather see GM read Sun's APIDoc for
java.lang.Throwable --makes sense, no? Enough, maybe, to convince one that
FOP has no business throwing an 'IllegalArgumentException' or a
'FileNotFoundException', no matter how well the name seems to fit the
error... (esp. the first, since it subclasses RuntimeException = unchecked)

So, Tibor, can you post your patch on Bugzilla? Fine by me to leave all as
it is now... and maybe when the time is ripe, we'll use it.
Thanks very much for the contribution. I just hope this piece of sound logic
doesn't go to waste.



[*] as a slightly more realistic example:

try {
} catch( FNFE e ) {
  // this will catch FNFEs regardless of which
  // of the two objects it gets thrown by.
  // sorting out which one here can prove to be
  // quite messy and painful...
  // now, if only one of the two was 'behaving'...

Reply via email to