Re: Standardized way of interpolating variables into PEAR_Exception messages?

Pierre wrote: >Helllo, > >On 9/23/06, Alexey Borzov <borz_off@cs.msu.su> wrote: > >> >> > Ah... and I've just been told on IRC that the RFC requiring >> >> > PEAR_Exception for PHP5 packages, although "approved", is not >> >> > necessarily a requirement after all. It might be nice to edit >> >> > "approved...but despite that, not agreed upon or required" >> >> > proposals >> >> > to reflect their true status. I'm just trying to strictly follow all >> >> > of the coding standards for my proposals as best I can. >> >> >> >> That's complete and utter BS. >> > >> > Alexey, again, keep such words out of this list. >> > >> >> The proposal is either accepted or not, whether the anonymous person >> >> on IRC likes it or not. >> > >> > And I confirm that this pepr is not accepted. We are not going to >> > accept such changes with five +1, we never did and we will not start >> > now. A large participation and agreement is required. >> >> Hey, you are Mr. PEAR Group, not me. If you want to make up new rules for >> accepting proposals then go ahead and make them up, but please follow due >> procedure [1] for this. The exceptions proposal was accepted 2 years ago, but >> people who supposedly have issues with it didn't try to do anything to fix >these >> issues. > >What I say is to consider this draft as what we should use as rule for >exceptions is plain wrong. If you have really tried them two years, >you would not have proposed them as standard, really not. We currently work on a large package that uses these rules and it's ok, much better than PEAR_Error or other pseudo solutions available in PEAR like ErrorStack. So I am glad this RFC was approved and I can confirm it's efficient. On the other hand, I can't think of any packages you wrote that use exceptions. Actually, I can't think of any packages you wrote on your own in PEAR. You don't have enough experience in my opinion to know what it takes to make a good package. So you can express your opinion but I'll take it with a grain of salt. >Also a quick review of the comments will tell you how controversial is >this proposal and how hard it is to define strong rules about this >topic. I prefer guidelines and common sense. We don't really care about what you think today. You had the opportunity to voice your opinion. Now it's too late, you just have to follow the rules decided by the majority. That's how it works here and fortunately in other places of the world. >Also this proposal misses the conversion from other Errors (Error or >ErrorStack ) to exceptions. Given the amount of questions about >exceptions usage , when to use them, when to define your own classes >or reuse a standard one (internal one), I strongly ask for a complete >documentation *and* guideline in PEAR, it is much more important than >yet another set of rules. We already have way too many rules. You can >always propose one again once we get a doc and a guideline. I see you copy/pasted comments from Stig Bakken <http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-vote-show.php?id=132&handle=ssb> : 1. Stig Bakken hasn't been active for years. I think he is the one responsible for PEAR_Error mess. He never wrote any PHP5 package for PEAR. 2. We don't care about PEAR_Errors or ErrorStack since they are not needed anymore. PEAR_Exception exists and works. It is important for every package that throw an exception to extend PEAR_Exception, just for the exception to be identified. His comments, as well as yours, are pointless. >The "you are Mr...." comment is pointless (and crossing the border), >as you noticed with your last RFC, everyone can write and propose one. >Last but not least, stay on topic. Then just write one, propose it, and stop pissing developers, Mr. PEAR. People are trying to work and accomplish something here. Let them do it. -- Bertrand Mansion http://www.mamasam.com - creative internet solutions http://golgote.freeflux.net - blog