Re: RE : [PEAR-DEV] Mod 10 for Payment package?
| From: | Stefan Neufeind | Date: | Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:12:08 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: RE : [PEAR-DEV] Mod 10 for Payment package? | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-21649@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 17 Sep 2003 at 12:57, Greg Beaver wrote:
> Stefan Neufeind wrote:
> > On 17 Sep 2003 at 17:52, LIMBOURG Arnaud wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Have a look at greg's error_raise package if you like error
> >>handling. www.chiarquartet.com/apidoc/ iirc.
> >
> >
> > Well, it's a decision - but it's not an "open" decision. If we're
> > going to change the behaviour we would need to change it for the
> > whole Validate - or state that we use it in all specialised classes.
> > This or that way we whould have to agree upon something general (for
> > Validate, and maybe for other packages too). As Bertrand put it:
> > It's against the "keep it simple" [tm]
>
> Wouldn't it be simpler to just stop all development altogether, and in
> fact, just use everything as is? There are plenty of validation
> solutions out there. In fact, wouldn't it be simpler to drop PHP
> altogether? Other languages do exactly the same thing.
>
> I guess I'm more of a "do it the best way" [tm] kind of guy. Simple
> can only go so far - it's simpler for the programmers of Validate, but
> is it really simpler for the users of Validate? If you do want to
> determine *why* something is broken, you can't. You must instead do a
> whole series of complex programming things to answer a question that
> could have been easily answered by the Validate class to begin with.
> Is that really simple?
>
> It would also be simpler to just live in the woods and kill what you
> plan on eating when you want to eat it. However, when you catch a
> debilitating disease from what you eat, it would be simpler to have a
> hospital around than to try to get better by yourself :).
Hey Greg, please calm down a bit :-)))
I see your point and I've also discussed various times about the
*good* points of using pear-error-objects. Hmm ... so maybe let's
wait what Pierre (and Tomas?) decide about this - for Validate.
In general using pear-error-objects would be good, I agree with you.
But we have to keep in mind the (large?) overhead it produces.
Stefan