Simon Belak wrote: > I suppose we could split error_handler into two additional more > specialised functions. For example: > > validation_error_handler (crappy -- too verbose -- name) > exception_handler > > while still retaining error_handler as a composition of both. >
My own preference is for: error_handler -> for validation errors exception_handler -> for exceptions To be honest I didn't expect the "even better error handling" thing to also become a exception handler, I always "expected" it to be used only for validation errors. But since you added this powerful feature (that can also use rules based dispatch) I think it would be great to keep it inside an exception_handler decorator for advanced user that are able and want to use it. But to avoid this confusion (that I also experienced) IMHO it's better to keep the two thing separated since they are two different things (validations errors vs exceptions). Sincerely ATM I just want to use error_handler for validation_errors I don't want it to catch my exceptions (that's a different problem that will be nicely solved by exception_handler). That's my POV. Ciao Michele --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
