Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
How do we want to handle the (graceful?) removal of JError?
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  6 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Louis Landry  
View profile  
 More options Oct 8 2012, 3:02 am
From: Louis Landry <louislan...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 00:02:34 -0700
Local: Mon, Oct 8 2012 3:02 am
Subject: How do we want to handle the (graceful?) removal of JError?

Hi guys and gals,

I'd like to get some input from you all on what may be a someone sensitive
topic to some.  To put it bluntly JError is a marked man.  His time has
come and gone once already, but he was given a stay of execution.
 Originally we had JError marked deprecated for removal in the 12.1
release.  After some intense conversations we decided to push removal out
to the 13.1 release.

In the meantime several things were marked deprecated for removal in 12.3.
 Some of those things were the `JObject::getError()` family of methods.
 I've given them a similar extension to the 13.1 release because we need to
figure out how we are going to do this change.

Essentially what we have are a number of classes and methods in the
platform that do things like:

```
if ($expression == false)
{
    $this->setError('My error message is foo.');
    return false;

}

```

The JTable classes are infamous for this sort of activity.  What needs to
happen is that all of those things need to get translated into messages
being queued, exceptions being thrown, etc.  I count 162 matches on
`->setError(` in the platform libraries right now.  In reality that isn't a
whole lot to deal with, but we need to agree upon the how and we need a few
people to help us get the work done once we've decided upon the how.

So.... how do we want to handle this thing?

- Louis


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Mark Dexter  
View profile  
 More options Oct 8 2012, 10:58 am
From: Mark Dexter <dextercow...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 07:58:17 -0700
Local: Mon, Oct 8 2012 10:58 am
Subject: Re: [jplatform] How do we want to handle the (graceful?) removal of JError?
I suppose it is not possible to do some magic for b/c purposes and
convert calls to JError into exceptions or messages in the queue? I
don't think fixing this in core will be difficult, but it seems like
it might create major b/c issues. Mark


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Elin Waring  
View profile  
 More options Oct 8 2012, 12:39 pm
From: Elin Waring <elin.war...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 12:39:03 -0400
Local: Mon, Oct 8 2012 12:39 pm
Subject: Re: [jplatform] How do we want to handle the (graceful?) removal of JError?

I've been puzzling over those setErrors for a while when I come across them
(and never have been able to get a consensus answer by asking people what
to do with them).  Overall I think a lot of the things that should  be
exceptions have already started down that path should just finish that
journey by turning into logged messages and leaving it to the application
to add a message if it makes sense. But there are a some places where the
message queue makes sense especially when they are closer to the user.

Is there any news from the PWG that is supposed to be working on the
message queueing? I think consideration of that has to be part of the
discussion.

Elin


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Chris Davenport  
View profile  
 More options Oct 8 2012, 4:32 pm
From: Chris Davenport <chris.davenp...@joomla.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:32:07 +0100
Local: Mon, Oct 8 2012 4:32 pm
Subject: Re: [jplatform] How do we want to handle the (graceful?) removal of JError?

If you mean this PWG:
http://docs.joomla.org/Message_Queue_Working_Groupthen that's a
completely different kind of message queue that is not at all
related to the $app->enqueueMessage() kind of message queue.

Chris.

On 8 October 2012 17:39, Elin Waring <elin.war...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
Chris Davenport
Joomla Production Leadership Team

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Andrew Eddie  
View profile  
 More options Oct 8 2012, 6:14 pm
From: Andrew Eddie <mambob...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 08:13:49 +1000
Local: Mon, Oct 8 2012 6:13 pm
Subject: Re: [jplatform] How do we want to handle the (graceful?) removal of JError?
I think we can do all this with minimal backward compatibility
(depending on how you define it), or none at all.  The issue boils
down to extension developers writing dual-version 2.5+3.x code.  The
main issue is handling exceptions in 3.x and JError in 2.5, which is
exactly the same problem we have here (getting developers to handle
more exceptions).

So, thinking out loud, I think getError method could change to just
return false; getErrors method could change to return an empty array;
and setError could change to throw an exception.  Because dual-version
developers already have to cope with exceptions from 3.x, it should
impact minimally.  Obviously 3.1 (I expect) developers will have some
slight issues because JError::* disappears but they can make the
appropriate changes now, in 3.0 land, to prepare for that. Anyone that
has an iPhone sees the same sort of things in the App store (Minor
update for iOS6/iPhone 5 compatibility) so it's not an unreasonable
expectation to have of developers.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

On 9 October 2012 00:58, Mark Dexter <dextercow...@gmail.com> wrote:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Elin Waring  
View profile  
 More options Oct 8 2012, 7:10 pm
From: Elin Waring <elin.war...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon, Oct 8 2012 7:10 pm
Subject: Re: [jplatform] How do we want to handle the (graceful?) removal of JError?

That's the problem of kind of having a vague memory of something ...


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »