Filtered XMLStreamReader Exceptions (java.xml)

[Michael Edgar]

The bug for this issue was accepted: JDK-8255918. I have made the change
that I suggested in my original email and tested, but have not yet opened a
pull request. Please let me know what (if anything) needs to occur for the
CSR process due to the method signature change (added `throws`).

Thank you,
Mike


On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 12:52 PM Joe Wang <huizhe.wang at oracle.com> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> As you said, creating a bug report would be a good start. If it involves
> a signature change, it'd need to go through a proper review (CSR) process.
>
> When you are ready to submit a bug report, please make sure to add a
> test case to illustrate the use case scenario.
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
> On 10/28/20 5:14 AM, Michael Edgar wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > I'm working on a project that makes use of the StAX API and an issue I
> have
> > encountered is that when wrapping an `XMLStreamReader` with a
> > `StreamFilter`, errors encountered in the setup are not thrown to the
> > caller. The source of the error could be any stream error that is
> triggered
> > as the `XMLStreamFilterImpl` advances to the next acceptable event.
> > Ultimately, when attempting to utilize the filtered reader, some
> secondary
> > exception will occur, but the original `Exception` is lost.
> >
> > I have not seen any other issues related specifically to this problem,
> so I
> > would like to propose removal of the try/catch in the constructor of
> > `com.sun.org.apache.xerces.internal.impl.XMLStreamFilterImpl` and the
> > method signature changed to declare that `XMLStreamException` is thrown.
> > The constructor is used by
> >
> `com.sun.xml.internal.stream.XMLInputFactoryImpl.createFilteredReader(XMLStreamReader,
> > StreamFilter)` which itself already declares the same exception and is an
> > implementation of the public `XMLInputFactory` interface.
> >
> > Further, the `nextTag` method of the same class has a bug where it checks
> > for `START_ELEMENT` events twice.
> >
> > I have an OCA in place and I am happy to submit a PR, but I believe that
> a
> > bug record needs to be opened in order to proceed.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Mike
>
>