Re: Re: [PEPr] -1 for RFC::Error Handling Guidelines for PHP5 packages

(Thanks for pointing me to PEAR_Exception.) Please don't misunderstand this, your document definitely has its place and I appreciate the work you have but into it, but IMHO it would make more sense to start off by defining what exceptions mean to PEAR and _then_ have usage guidelines? Once these things have been worked out, I think these guidelines are appropriate. Until then, chances are that people need to rewrite code they wrote following the pre-standard guidelines. - Stig On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:48:57 +0100, Sergio Carvalho <sergio.carvalho@portugalmail.com> wrote: > Stig, > > PEAR_Error is deprecated by this RFC. It uses an error return approach, > and this section defines that errors must be handled using exceptions: > > http://wiki.ciaweb.net/yawiki/?area=PEAR_Dev&page=RfcExceptionUse#toc33 > > In this manner, it is no different from regular error return codes > referred in that section, in the second class of error conditions. > > PEAR_ErrorStack is too recent for me, and apparently most other authors > of the RFC to have had any experience with. Although you are extremely > late to the discussion (the wiki page was started almost two months > ago!), please edit the wiki page and add relevant information. I'll > update the proposal accordingly. > > PEAR_Exception is mentioned and is only required to have exception > nesting capabilities. For the purpose of the RFC, its not necessary, and > probably just plain confusing, to completely define the PEAR_Exception API. > > I'll note that there's already code for PEAR_Exception in CVS: > http://cvs.php.net/co.php/php-src/pear/PEAR/Exception.php?r=1.4 > > As for guidance on reusing exceptions, as well as designing exception > class hierarchies, that is threading heavily on software design, not > coding guidelines. The RFC just requires packages to provide a top-level > exception, creating the bare minimum classification of exceptions within > PEAR. All classification below that is left at the judgement of the > developer. > > Hope I've cleared your doubts. > > Cheers, > > Sérgio > > > > Pepr wrote: > > Stig Bakken (http://pear.php.net/user/ssb) has voted -1 on the proposal for RFC::Error > > Handling Guidelines for PHP5 packages. > > > > Proposal information: > > http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=132 > > Vote information: > > > > http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-vote-show.php?id=132&handle=ssb > > > > Comment: > > > > This document would be better suited as an introduction, it is not a comprehensive > > guideline. Despite the "Documenting Exceptions" and "Exceptions are part of the > > API" sections it is not specific enough to have any real meaning as a guideline. Things that > > are missing: > > * how to convert PEAR_Error and PEAR_ErrorStack type errors to exceptions > > * PEAR_Exception is mentioned but not defined > > * No guidance on when to re-use exising exception classes and when to create your own > > > > Requiring that each package declares one or more classes for exceptions gives no meaning, > > many packages will do just fine without this. > > > > IMHO the right place to start would be to define the PEAR_Exception API (or just state > > that it is identical to that of Exception), decide on a set of standard, general, exception classes, > > and how to convert PEAR errors to PEAR exceptions without losing any information. > > > > Sorry, -1 here > > > > > >