Re: Re: PHP Standards and Best Practices for PHP 5.3+ Frameworks and Libraries

-- Stefan Koopmanschap <left@leftontheweb.com> wrote (on Tuesday, 26 May 2009, 10:31 PM +0200): > Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > > -- Hannes Magnusson <hannes.magnusson@gmail.com> wrote > > (on Tuesday, 26 May 2009, 10:09 PM +0200): > > > > **Exceptions and Exception Handling** > > > > Each package must provide a base exception of the following name: > > > > vendor\package\Exception > > > > > > > Err. So every package namespace must have an Exception class/interface > > > called literally 'Exception'? > > > That feels a bit of an overkill. > > > How about "SHOULD provide"? > > > > I agree with "SHOULD provide". That said, why *wouldn't* you provide > > one? It's very common practice to catch exceptions based on type, and > > having a specific "type" based on the given package would only give more > > options to developers. What feels like "overkill" to you? > > If you change this to "SHOULD provide", then it defeats the whole > purpose of the exception. IIRC this exception was meant to be there to > enable code calling the package to have at least a global catch for the > package's exception. This was specifically proposed from a functional > point of few (being able to at least always catch the global package > exception). But for this to work, you must enforce the exception to be > there, else it defeats the whole purpose of this standard in the first > place. I *knew* there was another argument I'd missed. Thanks for summing it up so well, Stefan! -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney Project Lead | matthew@zend.com Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/