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

On Aug 30, 2004, at 6:20 PM, Sergio Carvalho wrote:

Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:

1. One or two weeks in summer times (or even not) is nothing :)

I'm sick of this argument. Its unfounded, so please stop repeating it in the hope it rings true after some time. Searching my basement archives: snip

The original post on that thread is dated 20th of June, by Thomas V. Cox, annoucing the presence of PEAR_Exception in CVS. Discussion about exception usage abounded, that month, and was used as the original base for the wiki page. Hello All,

I am just trying to cope with the intensive load of this discussion, sorry if I couldn't contribute some more (but I did voted +1 on the RFC). Just trying to keep things simple, it looks like some people do not welcome the RFC approach to exceptions. I personally don't see this is a problem. I proposed and I am close to release two PHP 5 packages and I used Cox's PEAR_Exception, renamed for the time being but the code is that one (e.g. http://cvs.php.net/pear/DB_Sqlite_Tools/Tools/Exception.php ) Hans adopted the same approach in his PHP 5 package. Since there are not a lot of PHP 5 only packages yet, I don't think it is such a bad thing to leave a bit more of freedom for PHP 5 solutions. Unless I got it all wrong and I can't use exceptions anymore in my packages I don't think that is going to be a tragedy if we wait for some alternatives, whatever these are. I think that rules and uniform handing are a very important part of PEAR but since PHP 5 packages are now more something extraordinary then the norm, I wouldn't mind waiting or changing error handling if necessary. In any case PHP 5 packages will still be alpha for a while (at least mine) ... I appreciate Sergio's frustration but at the same time I think it would be more beneficial to move on and see what's next, just in the spirit of constructive criticism of course. Cheers David Costa