> There are all sorts of unexpected exceptions that an underlying
implementation might throw
Why you do expect (catch) unexpected exceptions? What does catch block
contain? What's the difference with catch (\Exception)?
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 5:35:01 PM UTC+3, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> This is the logic we had for PSR-6, as well. There are all sorts of
> unexpected exceptions that an underlying implementation might throw,
> perhaps even indirectly via another backend. Those should be made
> consistent between implementations so that I don't have to worry about
> those differences.
>
> A spec is as much about the failure cases as the success cases.
>
> Recall also that PHP has the ability to nest exceptions, so it's entirely
> reasonable to expect an underlying implementation to do something like:
>
> catch (\Exception $e) {
> throw new ContainerException($e->getMessage(), $e->getCode(), $e);
> }
>
> Which would give us a catchable ContainerException, with a human-friendly
> message/code, and access to the underlying implementation-specific
> exception as well if appropriate for debugging.
>
> PEAR got this one right, IMO, and it's worth emulating. I'd favor keeping
> the common exception, although it is better as an interface than a base
> class.
>
> --Larry Garfield
>
> On 08/17/2016 07:02 AM, Chuck Burgess wrote:
>
> 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 BC-superceded and adds more exceptions.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" <matt...@mnapoli.fr
> <javascript:>> 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" <pmjo...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 15, 2016, at 14:10, Matthieu Napoli <matt...@mnapoli.fr
>> <javascript:>> 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/msgid/php-fig/d4912533-4b2a-43d8-87d4-4c8fdbb1d6b8%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
