Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:32866
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pooteeweet.org from 85.10.196.195 cause and error)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <1192703377.3026.18.camel@johannes.nop>
References: <BDAA6217-3345-400F-AE2E-14F50BB7C6C1@pooteeweet.org> <47170F2C.3070709@daylessday.org> <1192703377.3026.18.camel@johannes.nop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-ID: <2D3110B2-1DD0-4E9F-A2D5-F9D118BAFE0A@pooteeweet.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:29:15 +0200
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johannes_Schl=FCter?= <johannes@php.net>,
 PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
X-backendmedia-com-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-backendmedia-com-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-backendmedia-com-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached,
	score=0.137, required 6, AWL 0.04, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.10)
X-backendmedia-com-MailScanner-From: mls@pooteeweet.org
X-Spam-Status: No
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] exception policy for core
From: mls@pooteeweet.org (Lukas Kahwe Smith)


On 18.10.2007, at 12:29, Johannes Schl=FCter wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 11:45 +0400, Antony Dovgal wrote:
>> On 17.10.2007 20:09, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I remember that we discussed the question of exception throwing from
>>> core in the very early days of php 5, when the suggestion of turning
>>> all errors into exceptions first came up. I remember that we decided
>>> that exceptions should only be thrown from core on constructor =20
>>> errors
>>> by default. Along the lines of PDO, extensions could allow users to
>>> explicitly enable an exception mode.
>>
>> First of all, I have to say that I see nothing wrong in using =20
>> exceptions.
>> Second, I see nothing wrong in using exceptions _in OO extensions_.
>> And finally, I don't like the idea of having a special function in =20=

>> each and every extension to control it's error level.
>> PDO was built this way from the very beginning, but making this =20
>> some kind of standard would be a mistake IMO.
>>
>> You may not like exceptions, but that doesn't make them less useful.
>
> The possibility of changing the error mode at run-time makes it quite
> hard to read code. Since you always have to check the error mode of =20=

> the
> object you're currently looking at. Therefore I think we should avoid
> adding more of these switches in future - especially on an per-object
> basis.

Well I agree that this can be problematic. In the case of PDO one =20
might be passing a PDO instance to various libraries, which may rely =20
on exceptions being thrown or not. Personally I would not mind not =20
throwing exceptions for anything but constructor errors (actually I =20
think even those should be avoided), but that switch in PDO seemed =20
like an acceptable balance.

regards,
Lukas