Flamewar Summary Conclusion

19 years ago by Ilia Alshanetsky — view source — reply

unread

I'd like to thank everyone for voting on the topic and making their
opinions known. The conclusion is that:

E_STRICT will not be a part of E_ALL, however E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR
will be, this means no "new" errors will appear for current user, as
E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR is similar to what E_ERROR was in earlier
releases. So the only affect is that value numeric value of E_ALL is
greater then it was before. Marcus has already applied patch to this
affect a few days ago (Thanks!).

On the topic of "dynamic statics" the conclusion is that we do not
want this in PHP 5.2 and people who need equivalent functionally can
use class static vars that are arrays.

Ilia Alshanetsky
Advanced Internet Designs Inc.
ilia@prohost.org

19 years ago by Brian Moon — view source — reply

unread

Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

So the only affect is that value numeric value of E_ALL is greater then
it was before. Marcus has already applied patch to this affect a few
days ago (Thanks!).

This needs to be made obvious in the release notes or something. Users
that set their error level in apache will use a numeric value and not
the constants. That is the only way to change the value for an entire
virthost.

Brian Moon

http://dealnews.com/
Its good to be cheap =)

19 years ago by Ilia Alshanetsky — view source — reply

unread

I'll add a note about it to the 5.2 README file.

Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

So the only affect is that value numeric value of E_ALL is greater
then it was before. Marcus has already applied patch to this
affect a few days ago (Thanks!).

This needs to be made obvious in the release notes or something.
Users that set their error level in apache will use a numeric value
and not the constants. That is the only way to change the value
for an entire virthost.

--

Brian Moon

http://dealnews.com/
Its good to be cheap =)

--

Ilia Alshanetsky
Advanced Internet Designs Inc.
ilia@prohost.org

19 years ago by Steph Fox — view source — reply

unread

Back to my original (off-list) question - what happens if people don't have
E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR level error reporting switched on? Does it fall back to
E_ERROR or does the code fail silently?

I'll add a note about it to the 5.2 README file.

Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

So the only affect is that value numeric value of E_ALL is greater then
it was before. Marcus has already applied patch to this affect a few
days ago (Thanks!).

This needs to be made obvious in the release notes or something. Users
that set their error level in apache will use a numeric value and not
the constants. That is the only way to change the value for an entire
virthost.

--

Brian Moon

http://dealnews.com/
Its good to be cheap =)

19 years ago by Ilia Alshanetsky — view source — reply

unread

When E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR is triggers and not handled, it gets
translated to an E_ERROR "Catchable fatal error...".

Back to my original (off-list) question - what happens if people
don't have E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR level error reporting switched on?
Does it fall back to E_ERROR or does the code fail silently?

I'll add a note about it to the 5.2 README file.

Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

So the only affect is that value numeric value of E_ALL is
greater then it was before. Marcus has already applied patch to
this affect a few days ago (Thanks!).

This needs to be made obvious in the release notes or
something. Users that set their error level in apache will use
a numeric value and not the constants. That is the only way to
change the value for an entire virthost.

--

Brian Moon

http://dealnews.com/
Its good to be cheap =)

--

Ilia Alshanetsky
Advanced Internet Designs Inc.
ilia@prohost.org

19 years ago by Steph Fox — view source — reply

unread

Cool. I just had a horrible vision of hundreds of reports of 'strange
crashes' :)

When E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR is triggers and not handled, it gets translated
to an E_ERROR "Catchable fatal error...".

Back to my original (off-list) question - what happens if people don't
have E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR level error reporting switched on? Does it
fall back to E_ERROR or does the code fail silently?

I'll add a note about it to the 5.2 README file.

Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

So the only affect is that value numeric value of E_ALL is greater
then it was before. Marcus has already applied patch to this affect
a few days ago (Thanks!).

This needs to be made obvious in the release notes or something.
Users that set their error level in apache will use a numeric value
and not the constants. That is the only way to change the value for
an entire virthost.

--

Brian Moon

http://dealnews.com/
Its good to be cheap =)

--

Ilia Alshanetsky
Advanced Internet Designs Inc.
ilia@prohost.org

19 years ago by Markus Fischer — view source — reply

unread

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Is there an "UPGRADING 5.1 to 5.2"? I think there it would make sense, too.

- Markus

Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

I'll add a note about it to the 5.2 README file.

Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

So the only affect is that value numeric value of E_ALL is greater
then it was before. Marcus has already applied patch to this affect a
few days ago (Thanks!).

This needs to be made obvious in the release notes or something.
Users that set their error level in apache will use a numeric value
and not the constants. That is the only way to change the value for
an entire virthost.

--
Brian Moon

http://dealnews.com/
Its good to be cheap =)

--

Ilia Alshanetsky
Advanced Internet Designs Inc.
ilia@prohost.org

--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEbjdU1nS0RcInK9ARAndWAKDOqlZWv4TOYMhj778qn84C0oqdvwCdERYG
WlyJ8rxP5b/Ht0xmrMzj594=
=CZ2b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE

19 years ago by Marcus Boerger — view source — reply

unread

Hello Markus,

the question alone makes me question if it was worth the effort starting
it :-)

best regards
marcus

Friday, May 19, 2006, 11:23:32 PM, you wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Is there an "UPGRADING 5.1 to 5.2"? I think there it would make sense, too.

Markus

Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

I'll add a note about it to the 5.2 README file.

Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

So the only affect is that value numeric value of E_ALL is greater
then it was before. Marcus has already applied patch to this affect a
few days ago (Thanks!).

This needs to be made obvious in the release notes or something.
Users that set their error level in apache will use a numeric value
and not the constants. That is the only way to change the value for
an entire virthost.

--
Brian Moon

http://dealnews.com/
Its good to be cheap =)

--

Ilia Alshanetsky
Advanced Internet Designs Inc.
ilia@prohost.org

--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEbjdU1nS0RcInK9ARAndWAKDOqlZWv4TOYMhj778qn84C0oqdvwCdERYG
WlyJ8rxP5b/Ht0xmrMzj594=
=CZ2b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Best regards,
Marcus

Flamewar Summary Conclusion

Brian Moon

Brian Moon

Brian Moon

Brian Moon

Brian Moon

--
Brian Moon

--
Brian Moon

Flamewar Summary Conclusion

Brian Moon

Brian Moon

Brian Moon

Brian Moon

Brian Moon

-- Brian Moon

-- Brian Moon

--
Brian Moon

--
Brian Moon