2016-06-17 11:46 GMT+02:00 Christoph Becker <cmbecke...@gmx.de>:
> On 17.06.2016 at 10:29, Alexander Lisachenko wrote:
>
> > Nikita, Dmitry, ping. What do you think, shouldn't we replace all
> possible
> > places with Fatal Errors with correct throwing of Error exceptions? In
> > this concrete case it's for "require" operator.
> >
> > From what I can see Error will give us more control over the file loading
> > process and make it more atomic, because additional checks
> > if(file_exists($file) && is_readable($file)) generate extra stat
> commands,
> > they are slow and not reliable, because for highload projects, we can be
> in
> > the situation where "if" succeeded, but the "require" will fail because
> our
> > file was deleted immediately after check.
> >
> > Code like this:
> > try {
> > require $fileName;
> > } catch (Error $e) {
> > echo "Oops, maybe deleted? " . $e;
> > }
> >
> > is much more reliable than following, by using "include" instead of
> > "require". This was suggested in https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=72089:
>
> I have re-opened this ticket.
>
> > if (file_exists($fileName) && is_readable($fileName)) {
> > @include $fileName; // Silencing errors for the case of
> race-condition,
> > etc
> > }
>
> I'm not generally against throwing exceptions from include (or several
> other filesystem functions, for that matter), but the BC break has to be
> considered. I am, however, still opposed to offer the ability to catch
> a failing *require*.
Why?
