On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:59:23PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to submit a simple patch that causes the DBI connect() method
> to execute a HandleError code reference if it has one. There's a
> comment suggesting that it could be added, and it makes sense to me, so
> I submit this patch.
>
> --- DBI.pm.org Wed Aug 21 21:09:27 2002
> +++ DBI.pm Wed Aug 21 21:24:28 2002
> @@ -503,7 +503,8 @@
> unless ($dbh = $drh->$connect_meth($dsn, $user, $pass, $attr)) {
> my $msg = "$class->connect($dsn) failed: ".$drh->errstr;
> if (%attr) {
> - # XXX add $attr{HandleError} logic here?
> + # XXX add $attr{HandleError} logic here? Yes!
> + $attr->{HandleError}($msg, $drh, $dbh) if
> $attr->{HandleError};
> Carp::croak($msg) if $attr->{RaiseError};
> Carp::carp ($msg) if $attr->{PrintError};
> }
>
> Yep, that's it!
Thanks (and for the subsequent ones :)
> Actually, there are a couple of other places in connect() where DBI
> croaks() that don't take advantage of the HandleError attribute, but it
> seems to me that it makes sense for it to. I'm thinking here of the
> Usage error and the attempt to connect without specifying a database
> driver. I understand that DBI has to croak at these points, but it also
> seems to me that it could equally try executing a HandleError attribute
> first. My thought is that, in those circumstances, DBI will pass in the
> class name as the second argument, since there isn't yet a handle
> object. I've attached a patch that implements that behavior, as well as
> the behavior defined above. Thoughts?
I'm comfortable with leaving those unchanged. I see them as preconditions.
Anyone else got a view?
Tim.
