Are exceptions in php really that useful? - php

3 days ago I started rewriting one of my scripts in OOP using classes as a practice after reading a lot about the advantages of using OOP.
Now I'm confused weather I should use exceptions or not. They seem to make my work harder and longer.
My application check if the data was sent through an Ajax request or not then uses that info through the script.
Check this example :
/*
* The older way
*/
if($ajaxEnabled) {
$error = errorWrap('Ajax error');
} else {
$error = errorWithBackLinkWrap('NoAjax error');
}
function doSomething() {
if(empty($POST['name'])) {
die($error);
}
}
/*
* OOP way
*/
class someClass {
private $_ajaxEnabled;
public function doSomething() {
try {
if(!$this->_isDateValid()) {
if($this->$_ajaxEnabled) {
throw new ajaxException('Ajax error');
} else {
throw new noAjaxException('NOAjaxError');
}
}
} catch(ajaxException $e) {
echo $e->getErrorMessage();
} catch(noAjaxException $e) {
echo $e->getErrorMessage();
}
}
}
This code is only for demonstrating the problem, so I know there are some undefined functions in it :).
So before going oop, error handling was easier for me because I only had to echo the appropriate error.
Now using exceptions, in every function I have to check the type of connection first then write 2 catch functions for each thrown exception, which lead to a much larger code.
I'm really new to OOP in php so maybe there is a cleaner and a better way to do this, is there ?

Your question is not uncommon, whether/when to use exception is sometimes a philosophical decision and many experienced developers can't wrap their heads around it.
That being said, I've found that listing out the distinct properties of each way of handling error makes it easy to choose your preferred way:
Return code
The caller can ignore it or forget to check it
The caller usually needs more documentation reading before he can use it (does 0 mean success or failure?)
Object destruction is not guaranteed -- it all depends on the caller to clean up properly
When to use: It's pretty obvious. Use return codes when you trust the caller (internal code or trivial errors which can be safely ignored).
Exceptions
The caller cannot ignore it
The caller can still suppress it if he wants (with an empty try/catch)
Object destruction takes places properly -- most of the time
When to use: When you don't trust your caller as much (third party) or you really need to make sure your error code doesn't go ignored.
Die
Cannot be ignored and cannot be suppressed
When to use: It's usually obvious enough. You need everything to stop immediately.
(In a PHP context, I don't think it makes much difference. The above suggestions should still apply.)
(Aside)
Usually it's tempting to just write out an error message when something bad happens (especially when the first programming language you learned is PHP :P). But if you really want to grok OOP, it's not a proper way to handle errors.
Every object or every function should ideally only perform one function. If one function writes error to the screen and does its own thing, it's difficult to later switch to a DatabaseErrorLogger or TextFileErrorLogger or etc. One approach would be to supply a logger to use (this is called Dependency Injection). Another way to do it is to use exception -- this way, the caller gets to choose which ErrorLogger to use.

Exceptions as an error handling mechanism are VERY different in concept and implementation than function return codes. You cannot/should not simply map one to the other. You should read and digest this article (and then a few more including this one*) before proceeding further.
If you're going to favor exceptions instead of return codes for error reporting/handling then the structure of your code should change significantly.
(*The CodeProject link is .NET-specific but there's little code ti digest. It's mostly a best-practices article easily applicable to any language.)

You shouldn't use exceptions when your code can handle the error gracefully using an if statement (like you did there on your example).
Exceptions are for situation that are well, exceptional. Unfortunately this is not very straightforward, so it's up to you, the programmer, to decide what is exceptional or not. I think a good rule of thumb is:
Avoid using exceptions to indicate
conditions that can reasonably be
expected as part of the typical
functioning of the method.
From: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/dotnet/When_to_use_exceptions.aspx

Exceptions' usefullness is not in printing error codes. It's in catching error so you can try to solve them instead of crashing with fireworks.

If I understand how you're doing it, I think you're doing it wrong. Exceptions for not for errors. They are for exceptional circumstances. Errors can mean any number of things (for example, a user didn't enter a long enough user name on a registration form). That itself shouldn't be an exception. You could however use an exception to show that registration itself failed (Depending on the situation)...
And you don't need to have a try/catch block at every level. In fact, that's bad practice. Only catch exceptions if you either can handle the exception, or need to do something else before letting the exception continue. So, for example: If you are connecting to a remote set of websites, and the first one fails. You can catch the exception for that one, and retry with a second website. And keep going until you have no more left (at which point you'd throw another exception to indicate that no websites could be fetched). Another example would be if you're generating images. You have a method that does some computation while generating the image that throws an exception. You'll want to catch that exception so that you can "clean up" from the image process (to save memory, etc) and then re-throw it once you're done: catch (ImageSomethingException $e) { /* Clean up here */ throw $e; }...
The true power of exceptions is that it lets you handle the situations however you want (since the exception can just bubble up to the top of the program). But only catch exceptions where you know you can deal with them (or at least need to clean up). You should almost never do print $e->getMessage() inside of production code.
Personally, I have a default exception handler that I always install. Basically, if an exception is not caught, it will log that exception and then generate a 500 error page. That lets me focus on what exceptions I can deal with in code instead of trying to catch everything (which isn't usually a great idea)...
Good luck...

I personally hate exceptions. I don't work with them in my applications. I prefer functions returning (and expecting) defined status codes, and dealing with recoverable errors on that level.
In truly exceptional situations (like an unreachable database server, a file I/O error etc.) that are an immediate emergency, I tend to trigger and handle a fatal error. (Object shutdown will still take place, so any connections that need closing etc. will still be handled as long as they are placed in destructor functions.)
Third party libraries' exceptions I strive to catch as quickly as possible, and deal with them in my own way.
Joel Spolsky puts the reasons much better than I could in his notorious Exceptions essay.
Note that this is one view and one school of thought. There is a lot of brilliant software whose error handling is based entirely on exceptions, and that is perfectly fine. The key is consistence - either you make the design decision to use them, or you don't.

There is a finite capacity to most development processes - i.e. even where its possible to predict all possible circumstances that the code might run in (i.e. all possible combinations of inputs, all possible states for supporting systems like database, DNS, existing data etc) then its just not practical to deal with every scenario. Using exceptions allows you:
to bundle a series of operations into one entity for the purposes of determining success/ failure as a whole
handle multiple different modes of failures with a single bit of code
So yes - I'd say that exception handling is a useful practice - but not a substitute for handling the common failure modes specifically, intelligently and informatively (and typed exceptions are IMHO a complete oxymoron).

If all you need is to display error message, why don't you use
catch (Exception $e)
{ print ($e->getMessage()); }

Its a developers call.. not mandatory as kizzx2 told.
But if you are writing up some util or library kind of class its always good to throw exception as this lib or util may be used by others in future.

Related

understanding exceptions

I have read articles upon articles trying to understand what exceptions are used for in php and I have gone through the answers already given in the forum. One of the answers which made atleast some sense to me is this one: Are exceptions in php really that useful?
Here is a simple function for finding the inverse of a integer with and without using exceptions (source):
With exception:
function inverse($x) {
if ($x==0) {
throw new Exception('Division by zero.');
} else {
return 1/$x;
}
}
try {
inverse();
}
catch (Exception $e) {
echo $e->getMessage();
}
Without exception:
function inverse($x) {
if ($x==0) {
echo "I'm zero. Don't let me be the denominator.";
} else {
return 1/$x;
}
}
So here is my question, why and when should I use one over the other?
why and when should i use one over the other?
Oh, this is easy: You should never use "without exception" :) Don't misuse return values as status flag. Thats a bad habit from earlier days and only makes things more complicated, because then you have to check the return values and even their types over and over again.
If you have a function like inverse() the only thing it should ever do is to "inverse". If it can't do it, it's an exceptional situation, thus (you may guess) an exception.
To sum it up: Throw an exception, when there is a situation, that prevent a function/method to work properly, and that the function/method is not able to handle itself.
There are various opinions on "when to use an exception". My personal opinion is:
If you are working with your own code, theres basically no need to throw exceptions, as you then need to write your own handler for it - which also can be done without throwing an exception.
If you are developing APIs that other programmers are using, it can be usefull to throw exceptions, so the developer using your code knows, that he has to take care of handling errors, AND gets an idea of what was the error-reason. (instead of just getting null he might catch NumberToSmallException, NotANumberException, ....)
In other words: When you already know how to handle an exception if it would appear - dont throw it. If the handling should be up to another developer, using your code - throw it.
Exceptions should not be used to control the flow of your application logic. Therefore use if / else statements.
But these are just my ten cents.
Especially when you use object oriented programming, exceptions are quite handy. For example, in an application where you use a DB library that throws exceptions for when it cannot make a connection. In that case, you can catch that exception somewhere, and you show a special page that tells the user that the database is not working.
Maybe the best usage of Exceptions happens when there a method calls more than one level.
Think like I call method A, then it calls method B, and it calls method C. When this happens, if you do not use exceptions, method A must know all different types of error messages of method B. And method B must know about C's in the same way. But by using exception, method C's error can be caught easily without the help of method A and B.
Exceptions should be used when your script encounters an error, in the example you can't divide by zero and so you have a logical error, so an exception would be appropriate.
Using exceptions allows you to see better errors messages and will help when it comes to debugging, rather than simply printing out a string which could be anything. Furthermore you can catch exceptions so you can detect when something goes wrong, whereas simply outputting a string isn't of much help.
Check out the PHP docs on this for more info.
Exceptions are an invaluable tool when writing complex and/or extensible pieces of software, but saying that return values aren't good for reporting anomalies is IMHO an oversimplified and even dogmatic approach.
In this specific case it's perfectly reasonable to return a null value, as in "the inverse of the argument does not exist". For me the most important point is that inverse does not actually do anything; it merely provides some information (i.e. it is "read-only", it has absolutely no side effects).
Note that "absolutely no side effects" is also a good rule of thumb which means that you should definitely not echo from within the function unless echoing is why it exists in the first place.
If there were an expectation that after calling inverse successfully the state of the program would have changed and inverse cannot perform this change for whatever reason (perhaps it got passed bad arguments; perhaps a resource it needs is not available; etc) then you should absolutely throw an exception and let the caller decide how to handle the error.
Think of it like this:
Sometimes, the value for $x comes from a user (eg. from an HTML form or something), in this case you would like to display an error (maybe something like "The frobing level needs to be different than zero").
Other times, you are getting the value from a database, in that case it's kind of useless to tell the user about frobing levels or stuff like that, you will want to show an error page and log detailed information somewhere on the server (or even send an email to an admin).
With the second example it's not really possible to control what happens in case of an error (the same message is printed each time).
The right thing to do is to let the code that is calling your function decide what happens in case of an error. Exceptions are one way of doing this.
There are 2 major benefits of using exceptions:
They go through the execution stack (meaning that if you have a few nested functions, you don't have to re-pass the error value, this is done automatically.
The first piece of code after a throw() statement is the code in a catch() statement. This means that you don't have to make hundreds of checks in every nested function/method you have.
Considering this functionality, using a return value is useful in simple cases (for example your case). In complex cases, where you have 10-20-30 different error messages that can appear in different levels in the execution stack, using exceptions is a must, or other developers(/even you in a few months) will have major problems when debugging.
That's my 2 cents on the issue, hope it helps.
PS: It's useful to log the exceptions in an exceptions.log.

set_error_handler vs set_exception_handler [duplicate]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
What are the pros/cons of doing either way. Is there One Right Way(tm) ?
If you want to use exceptions instead of errors for your entire application, you can do it with ErrorException and a custom error handler (see the ErrorException page for a sample error handler). The only downside to this method is that non-fatal errors will still throw exceptions, which are always fatal unless caught. Basically, even an E_NOTICE will halt your entire application if your error_reporting settings do not suppress them.
In my opinion, there are several benefits to using ErrorException:
A custom exception handler will let you display nice messages, even for errors, using set_exception_handler.
It does not disrupt existing code in any way... trigger_error and other error functions will still work normally.
It makes it really hard to ignore stupid coding mistakes that trigger E_NOTICEs and E_WARNINGs.
You can use try/catch to wrap code that may generate a PHP error (not just exceptions), which is a nice way to avoid using the # error suppression hack:
try {
$foo = $_GET['foo'];
} catch (ErrorException $e) {
$foo = NULL;
}
You can wrap your entire script in a single try/catch block if you want to display a friendly message to your users when any uncaught error happens. (Do this carefully, because only uncaught errors and exceptions are logged.)
You should use exceptions in "Exceptional circumstances", that is when you call a method doFoo() you should expect it to perform, if for some reason doFoo is unable to do it's job then it should raise an exception.
A lot of old php code would take the approach of returning false or null when a failure has occured, but this makes things hard to debug, exceptions make this debugging much easier.
For example say you had a method called getDogFood() which returned an array of DogFood objects, if you called this method and it returns null when something goes wrong how will your calling code be able to tell whether null was returned because there was an error or there is just no dog food available?
Regarding dealing with legacy code libraries that use php's inbuilt error logging, you can override the error logging with the set_error_handler() function, which you could use to then rethrow a generic Exception.
Now that you have all of your code throwing detailed exceptions, you are free to decide what to do with them, in some parts of your code you may wish to catch them and try alternative methods or you can log them using your own logging functions which might log to a database, file, email - whichever you prefer. In short - Exceptions are more flexible .
I love the idea of using exceptions, but I often have third party libraries involved, and then if they don't use exceptions you end up with 3-4 different approaches to the problem! Zend uses exceptions. CakePHP uses a custom error handler, and most PEAR libraries use the PEAR::Error object.
I which there WAS one true way in this regard. The custom error handlers route is probably the most flexible in this situation. Exceptions are a great idea though if you're either only using your own code, or using libraries that use them.
Unfortunately in the PHP world we're still suffering from the refusal to die of PHP4, so things like exceptions, while they may represent best practise have been incredibly slow to catch on while everyone is still writing things to be able to work in both 4 and 5. Hopefully this debacle is now ending, though by the time it does, we'll have tensions between 6 and 5 instead...
/me holds head in hands...
It depends on the situation. I tend to use Exceptions when I am writing business logic/application internals, and trigger_error for Validator's and things of that sort.
The pro's of using Exceptions at the logic level is to allow your application to do in case of such an error. You allow the application to chose instead of having the business logic know how to present the error.
The pro's of using trigger_error for Validator's and things of that nature are, say,
try {
$user->login();
} catch (AuthenticationFailureException $e) {
set_error_handler("my_login_form_handler");
trigger_error("User could not be logged in. Please check username and password and try again!");
} catch (PersistenceException $pe) { // database unavailable
set_error_handler("my_login_form_handler");
trigger_error("Internal system error. Please contact the administrator.");
}
where my_login_form_handler pretties up the string and places the element in a visible area above the login form.
The idea of exception is elegant and makes the error handling process so smooth. but this only applies when you have appropriate exception classes and in team development, one more important thing is "standard" exceptions. so if you plan to use exceptions, you'd better first standardize your exception types, or the better choice is to use exceptions from some popular framework. one other thing that applies to PHP (where you can write your code object orienter combined with structural code), is that if you are writing your whole application using classes. If you are writing object oriented, then exceptions are better for sure. after all I think your error handling process will be much smoother with exception than trigger_error and stuff.
Obviously, there's no "One Right Way", but there's a multitude of opinions on this one. ;)
Personally i use trigger_error for things the exceptions cannot do, namely notices and warnings (i.e. stuff you want to get logged, but not stop the flow of the application in the same way that errors/exceptions do (even if you catch them at some level)).
I also mostly use exceptions for conditions that are assumed to be non-recoverable (to the caller of the method in which the exception occurs), i.e. serious errors. I don't use exceptions as an alternative to returning a value with the same meaning, if that's possible in a non-convoluted way. For example, if I create a lookup method, I usually return a null value if it didn't find whatever it was looking for instead of throwing an EntityNotFoundException (or equivalent).
So my rule of thumb is this:
As long as not finding something is a reasonable result, I find it much easier returning and checking for null-values (or some other default value) than handling it using a try-catch-clause.
If, on the other hand, not finding it is a serious error that's not within the scope of the caller to recover from, I'd still throw an exception.
The reason for throwing exceptions in the latter case (as opposed to triggering errors), is that exceptions are much more expressive, given that you use properly named Exception subclasses. I find that using PHP's Standard Library's exceptions is a good starting point when deciding what exceptions to use: http://www.php.net/~helly/php/ext/spl/classException.html
You might want to extend them to get more semantically correct exceptions for your particular case, however.
Intro
In my personal experience, as a general rule, I prefer to use Exceptions in my code instead of trigger_error. This is mainly because using Exceptions is more flexible than triggering errors. And, IMHO, this is also beneficial not only for myself as for the 3rd party developer.
I can extend the Exception class (or use exception codes) to explicitly differentiate the states of my library. This helps me and 3rd party developers in handling and debugging the code. This also exposes where and why it can fail without the need for source code browsing.
I can effectively halt the execution of my Library without halting the execution of the script.
The 3rd party developer can chain my Exceptions (in PHP > 5.3.*) Very useful for debugging and might be handy in handling situations where my library can fail due to disparate reasons.
And I can do all this without imposing how he should handle my library failures. (ie: creating complex error handling functions). He can use a try catch block or just use an generic exception handler
Note:
Some of these points, in essence, are also valid for trigger_error, just a bit more complex to implement. Try catch blocks are really easy to use and very code friendly.
Example
I think this is an example might illustrate my point of view:
class HTMLParser {
protected $doc;
protected $source = null;
public $parsedHtml;
protected $parseErrors = array();
public function __construct($doc) {
if (!$doc instanceof DOMDocument) {
// My Object is unusable without a valid DOMDOcument object
// so I throw a CriticalException
throw new CriticalException("Could not create Object Foo. You must pass a valid DOMDOcument object as parameter in the constructor");
}
$this->doc = $doc;
}
public function setSource($source) {
if (!is_string($source)) {
// I expect $source to be a string but was passed something else so I throw an exception
throw new InvalidArgumentException("I expected a string but got " . gettype($source) . " instead");
}
$this->source = trim($source);
return $this;
}
public function parse() {
if (is_null($this->source) || $this->source == '') {
throw new EmptyStringException("Source is empty");
}
libxml_use_internal_errors(true);
$this->doc->loadHTML($this->source);
$this->parsedHtml = $this->doc->saveHTML();
$errors = libxml_get_errors();
if (count($errors) > 0) {
$this->parseErrors = $errors;
throw new HtmlParsingException($errors[0]->message,$errors[0]->code,null,
$errors[0]->level,$errors[0]->column,$errors[0]->file,$errors[0]->line);
}
return $this;
}
public function getParseErrors() {
return $this->parseErrors;
}
public function getDOMObj() {
return clone $this->doc;
}
}
Explanation
In the constructor I throw a CriticalException if the param passed is not of type DOMDocument because without it my library will not work at all.
(Note: I could simply write __construct(DOMDocument $doc) but this is just an example).
In setsource() method I throw a InvalidArgumentException if the param passed is something other than a string. I prefer to halt the library execution here because source property is an essential property of my class and an invalid value will propagate the error throughout my library.
The parse() method is usually the last method invoked in the cycle. Even though I throw a XmlParsingException if libXML finds a malformed document, the parsing is completed first and the results usable (to an extent).
Handling the example library
Here's an example how to handle this made up library:
$source = file_get_contents('http://www.somehost.com/some_page.html');
try {
$parser = new HTMLParser(new DOMDocument());
$parser->setSource($source)
->parse();
} catch (CriticalException $e) {
// Library failed miserably, no recover is possible for it.
// In this case, it's prorably my fault because I didn't pass
// a DOMDocument object.
print 'Sorry. I made a mistake. Please send me feedback!';
} catch (InvalidArgumentException $e) {
// the source passed is not a string, again probably my fault.
// But I have a working parser object.
// Maybe I can try again by typecasting the argument to string
var_dump($parser);
} catch (EmptyStringException $e) {
// The source string was empty. Maybe there was an error
// retrieving the HTML? Maybe the remote server is down?
// Maybe the website does not exist anymore? In this case,
// it isn't my fault it failed. Maybe I can use a cached
// version?
var_dump($parser);
} catch (HtmlParsingException $e) {
// The html suplied is malformed. I got it from the interwebs
// so it's not my fault. I can use $e or getParseErrors()
// to see if the html (and DOM Object) is usable
// I also have a full functioning HTMLParser Object and can
// retrieve a "loaded" functioning DOMDocument Object
var_dump($parser->getParseErrors());
var_dump($parser->getDOMObj());
}
$var = 'this will print wether an exception was previously thrown or not';
print $var;
You can take this further and nest try catch blocks, chain exceptions, run selective code following a determined exception chain path, selective logging, etc...
As a side note, using Exceptions does not mean that the PROGRAM execution will halt, it just means that the code depending of my object will be bypassed. It's up to me or the 3rd party developer to do with it as he pleases.
The Exceptions are the modern and robust way of signaling an error condition / an exceptional situation. Use them :)
Using exceptions are not a good idea in the era of 3rd party application integration.
Because, the moment you try to integrate your app with something else, or someone else's app with yours, your entire application will come to a halt the moment a class in some 3rd party plugin throws an exception. Even if you have full fledged error handling, logging implemented in your own app, someone's random object in a 3rd party plugin will throw an exception, and your entire application will stop right there.
EVEN if you have the means in your application to make up for the error of that library you are using....
A case in example may be a 3rd party social login library which throws an exception because the social login provider returned an error, and kills your entire app unnecessarily - hybridauth, by the way. So, There you have an entire app, and there you have a library bringing in added functionality for you - in this case, social login - and even though you have a lot of fallback stuff in the case a provider does not authenticate (your own login system, plus like 20 or so other social login providers), your ENTIRE application will come to a grinding halt. And you will end up having to change the 3rd party library to work around these issues, and the point of using a 3rd party library to speed up development will be lost.
This is a serious design flaw in regard to philosophy of handling errors in PHP. Lets face it - under the other end of most of applications developed today, there is a user. Be it an intranet user, be it a user over internet, be it a sysadmin, it does not matter - there is generally a user.
And, having an application die on your face without there being anything you can do at that point other than to go back to a previous page and have a shot in the dark regarding what you are trying to do, as a user, is bad, bad practice from development side. Not to mention, an internal error which only the developers should know due to many reasons (from usability to security) being thrown on the face of a user.
As a result, im going to have to just let go of a particular 3rd party library (hybridauth in this case) and not use it in my application, solely for that reason. Despite the fact that hybridauth is a very good library, and apparently a lot of good effort have been spent on it, with a phletora of capabilities.
Therefore, you should refrain from using exceptions in your code. EVEN if the code you are doing right now, is the top level code that will run your application, and not a library, it is possible that you may want to include all or part of your code in other projects, or have to integrate parts or entirety of it with other code of yours or 3rd party code. And if you used exceptions, you will end up with the same situation - entire applications/integrations dying in your face even if you have proper means to handle whatever issue a piece of code provides.

Is it best practice to try - catch my entire PHP code, or be as specific as possible?

I do not have many kinds of Exceptions in my project.
Right now,(we use MVC) I have the try catch encompassing my entire code:
try{
fronController::dispatch($somthing...);
}catch(Exception $E){
//handle errors
}
I wonder if there is a good reason to use the try-catch block in as specific as possible way as I can or just keep it general as it is now?
The idea of an exception is so that a function can report failure without having to return special values. In ye old PHP, the only way a function could say it had a problem was by returning some special value like false or -1. This is not pleasant. For example, suppose I am writing a variant of file_get_contents().
The typical return value is a handle - represented by a positive integer. However, there are two basic problems I can encounter: the file you specified was not found, or the file you specified was not readable. To indicate an error I might return a negative number - because handles are positive - that associates to the particular cause of error. Let's say that -1 means the file wasn't there and -2 means the file wasn't readable.
Now we have a problem that -1 and -2 do not inherently mean anything to someone reading the code. To rectify this we introduce the global constants FILE_NOT_FOUND and FILE_NOT_READABLE. Let's see some resultant code.
<?php
define('FILE_NOT_FOUND', -1);
define('FILE_NOT_READABLE', -2);
function my_file_get_contents($file) {
// blah blah blah
}
$friendListFile = getDefaultFriendListFile();
$result = my_file_get_contents($friendListFile);
if ($result == FILE_NOT_FOUND) {
deleteFriendListFromMenu();
} elseif ($result == FILE_NOT_READABLE) {
alertUserAboutPermissionProblem();
} else {
useFriendList($result);
}
By having different error codes we can act accordingly to what the problem really is. That functionality is well and fine. The issue is purely in how the code reads.
$result is a horrible variable name. Variable names should be descriptive and obvious, like $friendListFile. The real name for $result is $fileContentsOrErrorCode which is not only too long, it examplifies how we are overloading a single variable with two meanings. You never, ever, want to have the same data mean two things. We want a separate $errorCode and $fileContents!
So how do we get around this problem? One not-really-a-solution some PHP libraries have used is to have their my_file_get_contents()-like functions return false if they encounter a problem. To disambiguate what the problem actually was we instead call my_file_get_contents_getError(). This almost works.
define('FILE_OKAY', 0);
define('FILE_NOT_FOUND', -1);
define('FILE_NOT_READABLE', -2);
$my_file_get_contents_error = FILE_OKAY;
function my_file_get_contents_getError() {
// blah blah blah
}
function my_file_get_contents($file) {
global $my_file_get_contents_error;
// blah blah blah
// whoa, an error? return false and store the error code in
// $my_file_get_contents_error
// no error? set $my_file_get_contents_error to FILE_OKAY
}
$friendListFile = getDefaultFriendListFile();
$result = my_file_get_contents($friendListFile);
if (my_file_get_contents_getError() == FILE_NOT_FOUND) {
deleteFriendListFromMenu();
} elseif (my_file_get_contents_getError() == FILE_NOT_READABLE) {
alertUserAboutPermissionProblem();
} elseif (my_file_get_contents_getError() == FILE_OKAY) {
useFriendList($result);
} else {
die('I have no idea what happened. my_file_get_contents_getError() returns '
. my_file_get_contents_getError()
);
}
As a note, yes, we can do a much better job by avoiding a global variable and other such little bits. Consider this the nuts-and-bolts demonstration.
We still cannot call $result anything better than $fileContentsOrFalseIfError. That problem has not been fixed.
I have now rectified one problem that you may have noticed in the earlier example. What if we do not cover all of the error codes? If a programmer decides that there needs to be a -3 code we weren't originally detecting it! We could have checked if $result was a string to make sure it wasn't an error code, but we aren't supposed to really care about types in PHP, right? Now that we can utilize a second return value from my_file_get_contents_getError() it is no problem to include a success code.
There is now a brand new problem that has emerged. Fix one and find three more eh? The new problem is that only the most-recent error code can be kept. This is terribly fragile! If anything else calls my_file_get_contents() before you deal with your error code, their code will overwrite yours!
Gah, now we need to keep a list of functions that are unsafe to call before you deal with the return value from my_file_get_contents_getError(). If you don't do that, you have to keep as an ad-hoc coding convention that you always call my_file_get_contents_getError() immediately after my_file_get_contents() in order to save the error code that belongs to you before it is mysteriously overwritten.
Wait! Why don't we just hand out identifiers to our callers? In order to use my_file_get_contents() you now have to ask create_my_file_get_contents_handle() for some number that will disambiguate you with all other callers. Now you can call my_file_get_contents($myHandle, $myFile) and the error code can be stored in a special location just for you. Now when you call my_file_get_contents_getError($myHandle) you can access that special place, get your error code, and no one has stepped on your toes.
Er, but if there are many callers we don't want to have zillions of useless error codes laying around. We had better ask users to call destroy_my_file_get_contents_handle($myHandle) when they are done so we can free some memory.
I hope this is all feeling very familiar to ye old PHP mantras.
This is all so crazy, just make it simple, please!
What would it mean if the language supported a better mechanism to react to errors? Clearly, trying to create some solution with the existing tools is confusing, obnoxious, and error-prone.
Enter exceptions!
<?php
class FileNotFoundException extends Exception {}
class FileNotReadableException extends Exception {}
function my_file_get_contents($file) {
if (!is_file($file)) {
throw new FileNotFoundException($file);
} elseif (!is_readable($file)) {
throw new FileNotReadableException($file);
} else {
// blah blah blah
}
}
$friendListFile = getDefaultFriendListFile();
try {
$fileContents = my_file_get_contents($friendListFile);
useFriendList($fileContents);
} catch (FileNotFoundException $e) {
deleteFriendListFromMenu();
} catch (FileNotReadableException $e) {
alertUserAboutPermissionProblem();
}
All of a sudden our old headaches of special return values and handles and coding conventions have been cured!
We can now truly rename $result to $fileContents. If my_file_get_contents() has a problem, the assignment is aborted altogether and we jump right down to the appropriate catch block. Only if there is no error do we even think about giving $fileContents a value or calling useFriendList().
No longer are we plagued by multiple callers stepping on each other's error codes! Every call to my_file_get_contents() will instantiate its own exceptions, if the error arises.
No memory problems! The garbage collector will happily clean up no-longer-used exception objects without you thinking about it. Using ye old handle system we had to remember to manually destroy the handle, lest have it lurk around forever in memory.
There are many other benefits and traits to exceptions. I strongly recommend looking to other sources to learn about these. Particularly interesting are how they bubble up the execution stack until some caller can catch them. Also interesting is how you can catch an exception, try to fix the problem, and then rethrow the exception if you can not. Do not forget that exceptions are objects! There is loads of flexibility to be gained by that. For exceptions that no one can catch, look into the exception handler.
My intent to answer the question was to demonstrate why we need exceptions. By doing this, I hope it is easy to infer what problems we can solve with them.
generally throw locally, catch globally unless an exception handler is specific to a function in which case handle locally.
class fooException extends Exception{}
// DB CLASS
public function Open(){
// open DB connection
...
if ($this->Conn->connect_errno)
throw new fooException("Could not connect: " . $this->Conn->connect_error);
}
// MAIN CLASS
public final function Main(){
try{
// do stuff
}
catch(fooException $ex){
//handle fooExceptions
}
}
Remember that exceptions are for exceptional cases. As I understand that, that happens when the error is out of your control. For example, invalid parameters are passed to a public API function, division by zero, situations like 'network connection lost', 'file not found'... this kind of things.
As a general rule, you should catch the exceptions that you know how to handle, like recovering from the error, log the error and propagate it, etc. If you don't know how to handle it, it's better to let it fail. Otherwise your application could be in an error state that you may not want.
So answering your question, it's better to be as specific as possible since every exception should be handled only if you know what to do with it (silently swallowing is a bad idea). If not just let the exception notify the user that something went wrong. Or if you want to, catch the exception to log the error and rethrow it.
There's good discussion here for C++, but the general concepts apply. I found the java tutorials on exceptions also very good.
You should be as specific as possible with catching errors in your code. Catching specific errors appropriately increases code maintainability, makes your code structured and organized.
It is also good practice as a convention, especially if you later work on team-based projects and you're not the only one looking at the code.
Personally throwing everything into one try catch block seems to be a code smell.
If you are using a try block for all your code, you might as well define a default exception handler (see the docs).
Other than that, the size of the try block is up to you, it depends on how fine you want your error handling to be. If you can't recover from any of the exceptions, there's really no reason to be specific, unless you want to log error messages that are specific (but the message of the exception and the stack trace will probably be enough).
If your handling all of your errors with one general catch you will get minimal feedback and options when an error does occour, it may be fine during development but when its on the front line it could cause you no end of problems.
Be specific and cover all of your bases where feedback is needed and recoverablity is possible.
Different errors may require different responses.
You wouldn't jump out of an airplane in response to every possible problem that could arise. Would you?
Well, that's what your app is doing.
There are situations where an exception can be caught and the application could continue to run. More likely, the app may need to respond to the same class of exception differently in different situations. Perhaps in one function an I/O exception isn't detrimental but in another it is.

What is the advantage of using try {} catch {} versus if {} else {}

I am switching from plain mysql in php to PDO and I have noticed that the common way to test for errors is using a try / catch combination instead of if / else combinations.
What is the advantage of that method, can I use one try / catch block instead of several nested if / else blocks to handle all errors for the different steps (connect, prepare, execute, etc.)?
I'd use the try/catch block when the normal path through the code should proceed without error unless there are truly some exceptional conditions -- like the server being down, your credentials being expired or incorrect. I wouldn't necessarily use it to handle non-exceptional errors -- say like the current user not being in the correct role. That is, when you can reasonably expect and handle an error that is not an exceptional condition, I think you should do your checks.
In the case that you've described -- setting up and performing a query, a try/catch block is an excellent way to handle it as you normally expect the query to succeed. On the other hand, you'll probably want to check that the contents of result are what you expect with control flow logic rather than just attempting to use data that may not be valid for your purpose.
One thing that you want to look out for is sloppy use of try/catch. Try/catch shouldn't be used to protect yourself from bad programming -- the "I don't know what will happen if I do this so I'm going to wrap it in a try/catch and hope for the best" kind of programming. Typically you'll want to restrict the kinds of exceptions you catch to those that are not related to the code itself (server down, bad credentials, etc.) so that you can find and fix errors that are code related (null pointers, etc.).
In general, try-catch blocks are great because they will break (move to the catch statement) whenever the exception occurs. If-else blocks rely on you predicting when the error will happen.
Edit:
Also, catch blocks won't stop your code from halting when an error is hit.
Throwing and catching an exception is an expensive operation compared with most any other primitive operation. If this is a piece of code that needs to perform well (eg, in a tight loop), you will want to look at your use case - if you expect the exceptions to be thrown relatively often, you will be better off with an if/else perforance-wise (unless the underlying code is just wrapping an exception for you, in which case there's no gain at all). If the exceptions are only thrown in rare circumstances, then you're better off with a try/catch to avoid the overhead of branching in a tight loop.
The advantage of try/catch, and exceptions in general, is more for the people developing libraries like PDO. They allow a system developer to handle undefined situations or unexpected results in a quick and easy way. Take a database connection. What should a system do if the database can't be reached. Should it halt execution? Try again? Throw a warning and continue? The system developer can't know what you'll need it to do, they they throw an exception, which you'll later catch and handle.
The advantage for you, as a consumer of the system is rather than getting some vague error code back, or a simple boolean false that it failed, you get an Exception object which will
Be named in such a way that it's more obvious what went wrong (If I remember right, PDO only has one Exception type, but other systems contain multiple exception types for different kinds of errors)
May/should contain methods and properties which can help you figure out why the exception was thrown
That's the theory anyway. There are lots of smart people who claim Exceptions are the way to go. There are also lots of smart people who think Exceptions are the devil, and a crutch for lazy system developers. There is nothing resembling consensus on this issue.
#Perchik:
My general philosophy of error handling:
You should use if / else to handle all cases you expect. You should not use try {} catch {} to handle everything (in most cases) because a useful Exception could be raised and you can learn about the presence of a bug from it. You should use try {} catch {} in situations where you suspect something can/will go wrong and you don't want it to bring down the whole system, like network timeout/file system access problems, files doesn't exist, etc.
Vexing exceptions
Try/Catch totally separates the error handling logic from the object business logic.
That’s exactly the advantage, using one try/catch instead of multiple if statements. You will also be able to catch any unanticipated errors.
Everybody else had good answers - but I figured I would throw my own in:
Try/Catch is an actual exception handling mechanism - so if you change your exceptions, it will automatically work on all try/catch statements.
Try/Catch gives the opportunity to run code even in the case of a major exception that might kill the if/else and in addition, the try statement can be rolled back (if you're savvy).
Since PDO is using objects, they are raising Exceptions if an error occur. The old mysql/mysqli were mere functions and didn't throw Exceptions they simply returned error codes. Try/catch is used when an Exception can be thrown from the code, and you catch it in the catch-clause, which is an object oriented way to handle errors. You can't catch Exceptions with if/else blocks - they share nothing with try/catch.
In php by using Try Catch with inheritence, We can throw exception from another class.
Example :- I am in the controller and validating user data by using Models.
If any error triggers, I just have to throw exception from Model methods.
The execution in try will break and catched in the Catch Block.
So There is less overhead of returning bool vales and checking that.
Apart from this Try Catch works great When using in chain ( Try - Catch inside another Try - Catch ).
This question has been asked more than a decade ago out of the wrong premise. In reality if and try are incomparable matters. Sadly, but up to this day people catastrophically confuse exceptions with try catch, thinking one is inseparable from another.
In the way it is asked, indeed it makes very little sense to change if {} to try {} in the meaning of obligatory try wrapping a single line of code to test for the error.
However the actual question is What is the advantage of using exceptions versus if {} else {}.
And it starts to make a whole world of sense immediately: exceptions allow automated error reporting, when neither try catch nor if else is ever have to be written.
An exception is essentially an automated way to write if ($result == FALSE) raise_error(); Without exceptions you are bound to test every operation's result manually. It would be just stupid to recreate the same behavior using exceptions. In most cases a thrown exception should be left alone, unless there is a certain handling scenario. In all other cases it has to bubble up elsewhere, hence no try {} catch {} has to be written.
Let's say we are writing an a/b division code and the most famous exception case has occurred i.e. 0 divide error, what do you think can be done next?
1. You can print a message and exit.
2. You can print a message and let the user re-enter the values, etc.
There are cases when different people/vendors want to handle the same exception case in different way. The catch block let them do this with ease. If you need to change the way how a certain exception case will be handled, you just need to change the catch block.
TRY/ CATCH can be used within the programming context where you have very little information about the error or you think that might can occur such as.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main (){
try{
while(true){
new int[100000];
}
}
catch(bad_alloc& e){
cout << e.what() << endl;
}
}
Although there are no semantic or compile-time errors in the program, but it's understandable that it posses a run-time error which is "bad_alloc" which appears when you try to continuously allocate the memory and your program run out of memory. This exception is defined in bad_alloc standard class which is a child-class of class "Exception", since it throws an implicit exception, throw keyword is not implied here.
You can also use try/catch to check if the file is accidentally deleted and can use if/else to check if there exists a file or not, both have their own advantages.
Try and Catch functions are useful whenever there is a communication between functions. In Try and Catch , if there exists an exception in the TRY block, the control is transferred directly to the CATCH block which would store our exception condition. This however is not possible in case of IF ELSE, where in IF condition , if there exists an exception, the control cannot go to the ELSE block howsoever in any case.
int division(int a,int b){
if(b==0)
throw 101;
return a/b;
}
int main()
{
int a=10,b=0,c;
try{
c=division(a,b);
cout<<c<<endl;
}
catch(int a){
cout<<"Division not possible by 0"<<endl;
}
}
Consider the following Code: throw and catch function is used for communication between functions division and the main function.
Note that the statement to print c is not executed when b is 0 as the control directly transfers to the catch block after the value os thrown.
This however would not have been possible , had it been IF ELSE here.

In PHP5, should I use Exceptions or trigger_error/set_error_handler? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
What are the pros/cons of doing either way. Is there One Right Way(tm) ?
If you want to use exceptions instead of errors for your entire application, you can do it with ErrorException and a custom error handler (see the ErrorException page for a sample error handler). The only downside to this method is that non-fatal errors will still throw exceptions, which are always fatal unless caught. Basically, even an E_NOTICE will halt your entire application if your error_reporting settings do not suppress them.
In my opinion, there are several benefits to using ErrorException:
A custom exception handler will let you display nice messages, even for errors, using set_exception_handler.
It does not disrupt existing code in any way... trigger_error and other error functions will still work normally.
It makes it really hard to ignore stupid coding mistakes that trigger E_NOTICEs and E_WARNINGs.
You can use try/catch to wrap code that may generate a PHP error (not just exceptions), which is a nice way to avoid using the # error suppression hack:
try {
$foo = $_GET['foo'];
} catch (ErrorException $e) {
$foo = NULL;
}
You can wrap your entire script in a single try/catch block if you want to display a friendly message to your users when any uncaught error happens. (Do this carefully, because only uncaught errors and exceptions are logged.)
You should use exceptions in "Exceptional circumstances", that is when you call a method doFoo() you should expect it to perform, if for some reason doFoo is unable to do it's job then it should raise an exception.
A lot of old php code would take the approach of returning false or null when a failure has occured, but this makes things hard to debug, exceptions make this debugging much easier.
For example say you had a method called getDogFood() which returned an array of DogFood objects, if you called this method and it returns null when something goes wrong how will your calling code be able to tell whether null was returned because there was an error or there is just no dog food available?
Regarding dealing with legacy code libraries that use php's inbuilt error logging, you can override the error logging with the set_error_handler() function, which you could use to then rethrow a generic Exception.
Now that you have all of your code throwing detailed exceptions, you are free to decide what to do with them, in some parts of your code you may wish to catch them and try alternative methods or you can log them using your own logging functions which might log to a database, file, email - whichever you prefer. In short - Exceptions are more flexible .
I love the idea of using exceptions, but I often have third party libraries involved, and then if they don't use exceptions you end up with 3-4 different approaches to the problem! Zend uses exceptions. CakePHP uses a custom error handler, and most PEAR libraries use the PEAR::Error object.
I which there WAS one true way in this regard. The custom error handlers route is probably the most flexible in this situation. Exceptions are a great idea though if you're either only using your own code, or using libraries that use them.
Unfortunately in the PHP world we're still suffering from the refusal to die of PHP4, so things like exceptions, while they may represent best practise have been incredibly slow to catch on while everyone is still writing things to be able to work in both 4 and 5. Hopefully this debacle is now ending, though by the time it does, we'll have tensions between 6 and 5 instead...
/me holds head in hands...
It depends on the situation. I tend to use Exceptions when I am writing business logic/application internals, and trigger_error for Validator's and things of that sort.
The pro's of using Exceptions at the logic level is to allow your application to do in case of such an error. You allow the application to chose instead of having the business logic know how to present the error.
The pro's of using trigger_error for Validator's and things of that nature are, say,
try {
$user->login();
} catch (AuthenticationFailureException $e) {
set_error_handler("my_login_form_handler");
trigger_error("User could not be logged in. Please check username and password and try again!");
} catch (PersistenceException $pe) { // database unavailable
set_error_handler("my_login_form_handler");
trigger_error("Internal system error. Please contact the administrator.");
}
where my_login_form_handler pretties up the string and places the element in a visible area above the login form.
The idea of exception is elegant and makes the error handling process so smooth. but this only applies when you have appropriate exception classes and in team development, one more important thing is "standard" exceptions. so if you plan to use exceptions, you'd better first standardize your exception types, or the better choice is to use exceptions from some popular framework. one other thing that applies to PHP (where you can write your code object orienter combined with structural code), is that if you are writing your whole application using classes. If you are writing object oriented, then exceptions are better for sure. after all I think your error handling process will be much smoother with exception than trigger_error and stuff.
Obviously, there's no "One Right Way", but there's a multitude of opinions on this one. ;)
Personally i use trigger_error for things the exceptions cannot do, namely notices and warnings (i.e. stuff you want to get logged, but not stop the flow of the application in the same way that errors/exceptions do (even if you catch them at some level)).
I also mostly use exceptions for conditions that are assumed to be non-recoverable (to the caller of the method in which the exception occurs), i.e. serious errors. I don't use exceptions as an alternative to returning a value with the same meaning, if that's possible in a non-convoluted way. For example, if I create a lookup method, I usually return a null value if it didn't find whatever it was looking for instead of throwing an EntityNotFoundException (or equivalent).
So my rule of thumb is this:
As long as not finding something is a reasonable result, I find it much easier returning and checking for null-values (or some other default value) than handling it using a try-catch-clause.
If, on the other hand, not finding it is a serious error that's not within the scope of the caller to recover from, I'd still throw an exception.
The reason for throwing exceptions in the latter case (as opposed to triggering errors), is that exceptions are much more expressive, given that you use properly named Exception subclasses. I find that using PHP's Standard Library's exceptions is a good starting point when deciding what exceptions to use: http://www.php.net/~helly/php/ext/spl/classException.html
You might want to extend them to get more semantically correct exceptions for your particular case, however.
Intro
In my personal experience, as a general rule, I prefer to use Exceptions in my code instead of trigger_error. This is mainly because using Exceptions is more flexible than triggering errors. And, IMHO, this is also beneficial not only for myself as for the 3rd party developer.
I can extend the Exception class (or use exception codes) to explicitly differentiate the states of my library. This helps me and 3rd party developers in handling and debugging the code. This also exposes where and why it can fail without the need for source code browsing.
I can effectively halt the execution of my Library without halting the execution of the script.
The 3rd party developer can chain my Exceptions (in PHP > 5.3.*) Very useful for debugging and might be handy in handling situations where my library can fail due to disparate reasons.
And I can do all this without imposing how he should handle my library failures. (ie: creating complex error handling functions). He can use a try catch block or just use an generic exception handler
Note:
Some of these points, in essence, are also valid for trigger_error, just a bit more complex to implement. Try catch blocks are really easy to use and very code friendly.
Example
I think this is an example might illustrate my point of view:
class HTMLParser {
protected $doc;
protected $source = null;
public $parsedHtml;
protected $parseErrors = array();
public function __construct($doc) {
if (!$doc instanceof DOMDocument) {
// My Object is unusable without a valid DOMDOcument object
// so I throw a CriticalException
throw new CriticalException("Could not create Object Foo. You must pass a valid DOMDOcument object as parameter in the constructor");
}
$this->doc = $doc;
}
public function setSource($source) {
if (!is_string($source)) {
// I expect $source to be a string but was passed something else so I throw an exception
throw new InvalidArgumentException("I expected a string but got " . gettype($source) . " instead");
}
$this->source = trim($source);
return $this;
}
public function parse() {
if (is_null($this->source) || $this->source == '') {
throw new EmptyStringException("Source is empty");
}
libxml_use_internal_errors(true);
$this->doc->loadHTML($this->source);
$this->parsedHtml = $this->doc->saveHTML();
$errors = libxml_get_errors();
if (count($errors) > 0) {
$this->parseErrors = $errors;
throw new HtmlParsingException($errors[0]->message,$errors[0]->code,null,
$errors[0]->level,$errors[0]->column,$errors[0]->file,$errors[0]->line);
}
return $this;
}
public function getParseErrors() {
return $this->parseErrors;
}
public function getDOMObj() {
return clone $this->doc;
}
}
Explanation
In the constructor I throw a CriticalException if the param passed is not of type DOMDocument because without it my library will not work at all.
(Note: I could simply write __construct(DOMDocument $doc) but this is just an example).
In setsource() method I throw a InvalidArgumentException if the param passed is something other than a string. I prefer to halt the library execution here because source property is an essential property of my class and an invalid value will propagate the error throughout my library.
The parse() method is usually the last method invoked in the cycle. Even though I throw a XmlParsingException if libXML finds a malformed document, the parsing is completed first and the results usable (to an extent).
Handling the example library
Here's an example how to handle this made up library:
$source = file_get_contents('http://www.somehost.com/some_page.html');
try {
$parser = new HTMLParser(new DOMDocument());
$parser->setSource($source)
->parse();
} catch (CriticalException $e) {
// Library failed miserably, no recover is possible for it.
// In this case, it's prorably my fault because I didn't pass
// a DOMDocument object.
print 'Sorry. I made a mistake. Please send me feedback!';
} catch (InvalidArgumentException $e) {
// the source passed is not a string, again probably my fault.
// But I have a working parser object.
// Maybe I can try again by typecasting the argument to string
var_dump($parser);
} catch (EmptyStringException $e) {
// The source string was empty. Maybe there was an error
// retrieving the HTML? Maybe the remote server is down?
// Maybe the website does not exist anymore? In this case,
// it isn't my fault it failed. Maybe I can use a cached
// version?
var_dump($parser);
} catch (HtmlParsingException $e) {
// The html suplied is malformed. I got it from the interwebs
// so it's not my fault. I can use $e or getParseErrors()
// to see if the html (and DOM Object) is usable
// I also have a full functioning HTMLParser Object and can
// retrieve a "loaded" functioning DOMDocument Object
var_dump($parser->getParseErrors());
var_dump($parser->getDOMObj());
}
$var = 'this will print wether an exception was previously thrown or not';
print $var;
You can take this further and nest try catch blocks, chain exceptions, run selective code following a determined exception chain path, selective logging, etc...
As a side note, using Exceptions does not mean that the PROGRAM execution will halt, it just means that the code depending of my object will be bypassed. It's up to me or the 3rd party developer to do with it as he pleases.
The Exceptions are the modern and robust way of signaling an error condition / an exceptional situation. Use them :)
Using exceptions are not a good idea in the era of 3rd party application integration.
Because, the moment you try to integrate your app with something else, or someone else's app with yours, your entire application will come to a halt the moment a class in some 3rd party plugin throws an exception. Even if you have full fledged error handling, logging implemented in your own app, someone's random object in a 3rd party plugin will throw an exception, and your entire application will stop right there.
EVEN if you have the means in your application to make up for the error of that library you are using....
A case in example may be a 3rd party social login library which throws an exception because the social login provider returned an error, and kills your entire app unnecessarily - hybridauth, by the way. So, There you have an entire app, and there you have a library bringing in added functionality for you - in this case, social login - and even though you have a lot of fallback stuff in the case a provider does not authenticate (your own login system, plus like 20 or so other social login providers), your ENTIRE application will come to a grinding halt. And you will end up having to change the 3rd party library to work around these issues, and the point of using a 3rd party library to speed up development will be lost.
This is a serious design flaw in regard to philosophy of handling errors in PHP. Lets face it - under the other end of most of applications developed today, there is a user. Be it an intranet user, be it a user over internet, be it a sysadmin, it does not matter - there is generally a user.
And, having an application die on your face without there being anything you can do at that point other than to go back to a previous page and have a shot in the dark regarding what you are trying to do, as a user, is bad, bad practice from development side. Not to mention, an internal error which only the developers should know due to many reasons (from usability to security) being thrown on the face of a user.
As a result, im going to have to just let go of a particular 3rd party library (hybridauth in this case) and not use it in my application, solely for that reason. Despite the fact that hybridauth is a very good library, and apparently a lot of good effort have been spent on it, with a phletora of capabilities.
Therefore, you should refrain from using exceptions in your code. EVEN if the code you are doing right now, is the top level code that will run your application, and not a library, it is possible that you may want to include all or part of your code in other projects, or have to integrate parts or entirety of it with other code of yours or 3rd party code. And if you used exceptions, you will end up with the same situation - entire applications/integrations dying in your face even if you have proper means to handle whatever issue a piece of code provides.

Categories