Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75344
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.52 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1403709912.12695.5.camel@guybrush>
References: <CAH-PCH6EZBhoYXNk8z_LP7AGxSjiVQVrZeQ2VhwmXuCp4C3ySA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLuM2VfYssk0z7KEqffoh8fwZ1bNR+bFFtTviKa_UMWhZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH4=PmhLzbQYRwZBx=XZWZSw7TKiGaGstdKjyqf2bcL=0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<1403709912.12695.5.camel@guybrush>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 21:22:15 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH5zOE-WO562Lj2pfjCP7=f60uZ6c6HLKZ74DP=DTNqp3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Johannes_Schl=C3=BCter?= <johannes@schlueters.de>
Cc: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133179c61cfee04fdb382b6
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: why do we not set http 500 for errors when the
 display_error is enabled
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--001a1133179c61cfee04fdb382b6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Johannes Schl=C3=BCter <johannes@schlueter=
s.de>
wrote:

> On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 16:32 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> >
> > > We can't set 500 response code if HTTP headers were already sent.
> > >
> >
> > we have the !SG(headers_sent) check for that, and I'm not proposing to
> > remove that(albeit I think that we could handle the special scenario,
> > when
> > the only output is generated by the error, but that is a separate
> > topic).
> >
> >
> I believe this causes some inconsistency, sometimes status code is
> changed, sometimes not. Uncertain which is worse - wrong code or harder
> to predict behavior.
>
>
you mean it would be inconsistent if we would signal the error with a http
500 when it is technically possible (we haven't sent out the headers)
versus when the error happened after the headers were already sent?
if we consider this as inconsistency, we are already inconsistent, and I'm
not sure what would be the consistent alternative: not sending http 500 at
all?
but as I mentioned I'm not really interested changing the headers already
sent scenario (as there isn't much we could do), but I do think that the
current behavior about only setting the response code to 500
if display_errors is disabled is questionable.
I would like to know if you think that changing this is out of the question
or not, and if we would change it, should it happen a minor or a major
version.
I also think it would make sense to document the current behavior, I
couldn't find anything regarding this in the docs.

--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--001a1133179c61cfee04fdb382b6--