On 3/8/10 5:23 PM, Andrey Popp wrote:
>> - a behavior change that may break folks who already rely on middleware
>>   to convert webob exceptions to responses.
> It is reasonable -1 for my proposal.

FTR, bw compat is about the weakest argument, I think.  Backwards compatibility 
can always be sacrificed as long as the docs spell out how to fix things for 

>> It just becomes a bit of a rabbit hole.  The rabbit hole is avoided entirely
>> if the we document that people should just put the
>> webob.exc.HTTPExceptionMiddleware middleware into their WSGI pipeline if
>> they want WebOb exceptions to be converted to responses.
> Yes, it would be great, cause I did not know about existence of that
> middleware before start of our discussion.

I'll try to add it somewhere in the docs, or at least somewhere in 
http://bfg.repoze.org/tutorialbin.  By the way, have you tried it?  It looks 
like it should work...

>> OTOH, it'd be reasonable to provide a generic "exception view" facility like
>> Zope's where users can map any exception type to a particular view; this is
>> definitely less adhoc and requires less documentation.  I'd be +1 on such a
>> feature, I think.  At least without thinking about it really hard at the
>> moment. ;-)
> I was thinking of this too — it is good to return control back to
> application during handling of this kind of errors (4xx). Also it will
> convert notfound/forbidden views from special cases of Router
> processing cycle to special cases of "exception view".

Right, I think it makes sense... do you think you might want to take a stab at 
implementing that?

Chris McDonough
Agendaless Consulting, Fredericksburg VA
The repoze.bfg Web Application Framework Book: http://bfg.repoze.org/book
Repoze-dev mailing list

Reply via email to