Can we stay on topic please. At this time I count a vast number of
mails, but never has talked about the RFC.
Fact is that these three cases, how a autoloader terminates, exists in
PHP. If all these cases are useful is an other topic. Can we all agree
on this?
Am 25.11.2011 11:21, schrieb Sebastian Krebs:
2011/11/25 Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com>
The problem with fatal, that you have no way (by the standard means,
but
you can somehow manage it through the usage of output buffers or
register_shutdown_function, but thats ugly, and can change in the
future)
to intercept and gracefully terminate your application, which is an
often
needed feature.
AFAIK E_FATAL should be only used where the engine is left in an
unstable
state, which isn't really true here.
Trying to interact with a non-existing class is not an unstable
state?
there are two situations:
1. The application is broken, thus the FATAL is appropriate
2. The application tries to work with dynamic class names. If it
doesn't
use class_exists() before, its broken and FATAL is appropriate
So I think that E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR would be more appropriate here,
and in
general we use E_ERROR many places where E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR would
be more
suitable, but thats another topic.
For clarification: I'm talking about the E_FATAL which currently
will be
called if none of the registered autoloaders were able to load the
requested class.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Sebastian Krebs
<krebs....@googlemail.com
> wrote:
Hi,
Just to throw my 2 cent in: Im with Micheal. An application, that
tries to
access a class, that doesn't exists, is broken and a FATAL is
valid. This
application doesn't need try-catch, but a bugfix (and if it is
already
released: A better testing management).
On the other side an application, that makes use of dynamic class
names
should make use of class_exists() in any case. An exception after
calling
class_exists() is just bad, but the classloader cannot distinguish
between
the reasons, why it is called.
2011/11/25 Christian Kaps <christian.k...@mohiva.com>
> Am 25.11.2011 08:24, schrieb Michael Wallner:
>
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:28:35 +0100, Christian Kaps wrote:
>>
>>
>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/**autoloader_error_handling<
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/autoloader_error_handling>
>>>
>>>
>> Throwing an exception or fatal error in an autoloader
>> absolutely does not make any sense in my eyes.
>> Projects doing this should step back and think a
>> minute about what they dare.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> how would you bring your application in a consistent state after
a class
> couldn't be loaded. I do this by adding a try/catch block around
my
code.
>
> try {
> new Application();
> } catch (Exception) {
> // collect data
> // send mail
> // redirect to maintenance page
> }
>
> An other question is, if the autoloader work silent and I write:
>
> new NotExistingClass();
>
> I think in this case the engine will also trigger a fatal error.
So in
my
> eyes it is regardless of whether it trigger a fatal error in the
autoloader
> or the autoloader works silent. Both cases ends in a fatal error.
Or am
i
> wrong here?
>
> Christian
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
