RE: [PHP-DOC] Re: error handling [was: ugly cvs subject]

>Of course, this does introduce the problem of scripters >leaving the verbose error messages in their code when they're >ready for production. IMHO I guess I'm still of the opinion that the PHPDocs aren't really a resource for "Good practices", there are plenty of other resources available online for that. I think the PHPDoc should focus on straight facts... If we want to use trigger_error() instead of die() that's fine... But if you're a newbie the difference between "development" and "production" web sites don't exist.... I guess I just feel like if you know the difference then you inheritly know that certain development error messages shouldn't be displayed. Hence, I'm -1 on the idea that we should clutter the manual with such attempts. >Should set_error_handler()'s documentation be updated at the >same time to reflect switching between debug and production >modes? (Production mode being the time to supress NOTICE and >perhaps WARNING errors) > >-Pollita > >> +1 on using trigger_error() in examples, including in mysql_connect. >> +In >> my experience, it needs more exposure to newbies as it is a far more >> efficient way of dealing with errors. (And it actually took me a >> couple years to discover it! :) >> >> And here is how I would do the code snippet >> >> if (!$conn = mysql_connect($host, $user, $pass)) { >> trigger_error("Cannot connect: ". mysql_error(), >E_USER_WARNING); } >> >> Note that I have it producing a warning instead of an error. That's >> the way I do it, at least. ;) >> >> -Roy >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Philip Olson" <philip@cornado.com> >> To: "Gabor Hojtsy" <gabor@hojtsy.hu> >> Cc: <john@coggeshall.org>; "'Sara Golemon'" >> <php@alphaweb.net>; >> <phpdoc@lists.php.net> >> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 9:08 AM >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DOC] Re: error handling [was: ugly cvs subject] >> >> >>> >>> I like the idea of trigger_error() and not using 'die'. >Using 'die' >>> in errors in unsexy and rather limiting but yes I remember we >>> discussed this before too but it was only part of a huge discussion >>> regarding the coding_standards RFC. I also feel 'or' for errors is >>> unsexy and limiting. How about: >>> >>> if (!$conn = mysql_connect($host, $user, $pass)) { >>> trigger_error("Cannot connect: ". mysql_error(), E_USER_ERROR); } >>> >>> Or will the !$conn part confuse people? Regardless, I agree if we >>> don't use 'exit', and use trigger_error(), this would be a good >>> thing. We would then update the trigger_error() docs so that even >>> ultra newbies can understand them. Also the error would show by >>> default still and be affected by the error_reporting >>> function/directive. This is good. But, this brings up the >point of >>> should we use @ in examples, like, wouldn't the following be more >>> appropriate? >>> >>> if (!$conn = @mysql_connect($host, $user, $pass)) { >>> trigger_error("Cannot connect: ".mysql_error(), E_USER_ERROR); } >>> >>> I must admit my ignorance using trigger_error() and friends >as I use >>> my own but I'll mess with it a bit so I can better add to this >>> discussion. Our examples should assume set_error_handler() is not >>> being used but encourage its use and discuss how if the database is >>> down how easy it is to show a pretty static html page >instead. Maybe >>> in a tutorial ;) >>> >>> Regards, >>> Philip Olson >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > >