Hey there Matthieu, As a consumer of a PSR-implementing library, not only would I only type-hint against the PSR interfaces rather than the library's elements, I would also only type-hint against the PSR exceptions for catches. Unless my consumer code's catch is specifically able to deal with one specific PSR exception (e.g. NotFoundException), then I would generally only catch against the library's base exception, thus able to generically contain the scenario of the library itself throwing whatever it might throw. In this case, I understand the feeling that having only one (specific) exception can make a base exception seem unnecessary. However, I think keeping it not only allows for the convention/expectation that consumers may already have... it also future-proofs my consumer code for when this PSR is BC-superceded and adds more exceptions.
A less prevalent case might be the implementing library having its own larger set of exceptions, where it won't necessarily make sense for them all to extend/implement the one NotFoundException. The worse alternative there would be for the library have and throw its own... now my consumer code has to know about them rather than staying only PSR-aware. If the base exception is available, the library can extend/implement from it, and thus all library-added exceptions can be caught by catching the PSR base exception alone. CRB On Aug 17, 2016 6:30 AM, "Matthieu Napoli" <matth...@mnapoli.fr> wrote: > Hi Chuck, > > Are you using ContainerInterface or do you plan to use it in PEAR? If so, > in which scenario would that exception be useful? > The goal is to collect such scenarios to see if that specific interface > serves any purpose. > > You are welcome of course to create a base exception class (or interface) > in PEAR's container package to satisfy your internal conventions. > > Matthieu > > Le Mer 17 août 2016, à 12:57, Chuck Burgess a écrit : > > PEAR most definitely wants to keep the package-level base exception, as it > is a convention we always expect to be available. We have *required* this > for years, originally as a class in PEAR1 standards, until we came up with > the idea of it instead being an interface while working on the PEAR2 > standards. We were quite happy with its demonstrated benefits, which > proved even better as an interface than a class [1], and were tickled to > see the use of it spread into the community after we published it. > > We would prefer to *not* lose the base exception interface requirement. > CRB > > [1] -- https://wiki.php.net/pear/rfc/pear2_exception_policy > > On Aug 15, 2016 7:35 PM, "Paul Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 15, 2016, at 14:10, Matthieu Napoli <matth...@mnapoli.fr> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > PSR-11, aka ContainerInterface, has been sleeping for too long. Let's > get that PSR moving! > > Woohoo! > > > > Here is a change I would like to suggest: remove the interface > ContainerException. > ... > > After years of using container-interop and ContainerInterface I have not > seen a use case for that exception. We initially added it to represent any > exception that could happen in a container. > > On principle alone, I usually like to see a package-specific base > exception class, so that you can catch any/every exception from a > particular package. (Maybe that's more an unnecessary consistency on my > part.) > > > -- > > Paul M. Jones > http://paul-m-jones.com > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to php-fig+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to php-fig@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms > gid/php-fig/325BF45B-4638-43AA-9D6F-59BADB38C65E%40gmail.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > topic/php-fig/_vdn5nLuPBI/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > php-fig+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to php-fig@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > msgid/php-fig/CANsgjnuZ%2B-MW1Avdu67RCqKQXkEA2YUSs% > 2BMrJqerRK3gXn6q%2BA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CANsgjnuZ%2B-MW1Avdu67RCqKQXkEA2YUSs%2BMrJqerRK3gXn6q%2BA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to php-fig+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to php-fig@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > msgid/php-fig/1471433444.1345100.697863737.35716C31% > 40webmail.messagingengine.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/1471433444.1345100.697863737.35716C31%40webmail.messagingengine.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to php-fig@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CANsgjnuL47WYqk1x22vmwbUyyxmE0xHc8C7GpLk9MMMub9Opqg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
