https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24574
--- Comment #17 from David Cook <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Rudolf Byker from comment #13) > Wow... is that supported? Because if you support that, you technically have > to make the program robust against every possible database issue, including > missing tables, wrong tables, missing data, wrong data ... the list is > endless. You would have to treat the database as a foreign entity. IMO, > properly supporting an "alien" database like this is intractable in almost > any software project. No, it's not "supported", but I'm sure people do it anyway. But then the responsibility for problems lays with the person manually updating the database I'd say rather than the software product. > Anyway, I agree that errors should be handled properly everywhere, whether > it's painful or not. Some programming languages are just more painful to use > than others... I agree about errors being handled everywhere. However, what does it mean to properly handle errors? I'd say that's context-dependent. Core Perl's exception handling is painful (ie using of eval{}/if($@)), but there are third-party modules that make it easier. At this point, the main problem is that Koha just isn't consistent in its approach to error-handling, but there are people working on improving that. Since Koha is over 20 years old and has a lot of CGI scripts, architectural changes tend to be fairly gradual. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
