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

Pepr wrote:

Pierre-Alain Joye (http://pear.php.net/user/pajoye) 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=pajoye Comment: Nice exceptions overview :) But: "It was written to cope with Exceptions, introduced in Zend Engine 2 as the error handling mechanism." -1 from here, I do not like the idea to force the usage of exceptions as general errors hanlders.

The alternative being a mixed use of exceptions and PEAR_Error/PEAR_ErrorStack. Are we better off?

I failed to see why each single package should declare (or extends, or...) their exception classes. Why? I can imagine some without any kind of exceptions...

I don't make a standpoint out of it, but it aims at introducing the barest of classifications for Exceptions within PEAR.

"An error is defined as an unexpected, invalid program state from which it is impossible to recover." This is the definition of an exception. Where exceptions should be used (trying at least to die cleanly ;) ). But in no way the definition of an error. That's exactly where errors and exceptions differ.

Can you present an alternative definition? Please do not mix the concept of error and warning -- the distinction should be clear on the wiki page.

Sorry, but -1 from here.

As long as its well explained, there's nothing to feel sorry for. My only regret for -1s is the lack of participation earlier in the RFC development process, which was really long and open to everybody. Cheers, Sérgio

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc