Re: PEAR::DB, backends and assertExtension

On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 05:43:23PM +0200, Tomas V.V.Cox wrote : > > > DB::assertExtension, instead we need a common assertExtension method > > > (for example in PEAR.php). > > > > Thats ok. There's nothing from my view against moving > > DB::assertExtension to PEAR::assertExtension. But do _not_ change > > its behaviour. > > > > What is a library of use when you can't recover gracefully from > > errors because it just dies? > > > > One thing for me is a run-time error and other thing is that the > software dependencies aren't covered so your system doesn't meet the > minimal requirements for using the class. Ok, but you are aware that you can PHP use also for other things. Beside using if for dynamix webcontent I also use it for client side desktop applications (ok, short php-gtk ;). This would mean, although the library has the code to _check_ for it and return it gracefully it doesn't make use of it and instead just dies away. That would render its usability useless in the first place if don't check it on the client myself and therefore double the code. I think people should always be aware that PHP has been started out as a web language but is used in many other placed to. Don't get me wrong, I know you contributed much and you certainly know what you do. But I think for the reasons I have its not a good idea to just let library code die . I'ld like to hear what others think about this. In general, and this has nothing to do with me using php-gtk also, it is always bad thing [tm] to let library code just die away. IMHO it would be the same as letting PHP segfault away because of invalid data or something. - Markus