|
|
|
|
|
|
by bjourne
4669 days ago
|
|
|
>> the function may also throw an exception if a dns lookup error occurred for example.
> What's wrong with (DNS Lookup Failure, -17), as long as it is documented? why doesn't 404 NOT_FOUND merit an exception, yet a DNS lookup failure does? Because then every function that could potentially cause a dns lookup failure needs to have that error code documented. Then ask yourself this, what's wrong with having (Out of Memory Failure, -1234) in addition to DNS Lookup Failure and HTTP Status codes? Think of yourself as a http function. You know about the http protocol and therefore from your perspective a 404 NOT_FOUND is a valid result. However, you do not know about DNS lookups or memory allocation therefore if a problem occurs in those areas it is exceptional -> exception. On the other hand, if you were a memory allocator function then returning out of memory instead of an address to the allocated memory would be fine. Because memory handling is your job. > But open() in C does return a valid result on any of those billion reasons: (fd -1, errno reason). Syntactically valid, but not semantically as -1 isn't a valid file descriptor. |
|
|
Indeed, I see nothing wrong with this.
> However, you do not know about DNS lookups or memory allocation therefore if a problem occurs in those areas it is exceptional -> exception.
This is where the disagreement lies. When I imagine myself as an http function FOR MOST USES, I imagine a "full service" function. You give me a URL (+post data), and get back a return code and a page. This functionality is sufficient for 99% of web uses.
If I can't get a 20x (possibly after following a 30x or 401 unauthorized response), the user in 99% of the cases does not care what the reason for failure is - they just need to know it failed and some reason to log/display.
Turn it the other way around: Why should a user of an http library care about internal implementation details like DNS resolving, to the point of needing to include an explicit check for them? And if you're advocating for "catch all exceptions", how is that different from a multiple-return-value?
> Syntactically valid, but not semantically as -1 isn't a valid file descriptor.
So what? It is a valid return from the "open" function. No, you can't use it for reading or writing or ioctl - but then, whether or not you can do that to any other returned descriptor depends on what that descriptor is (/dev/random? /dev/null? a socket?)
I'm not disagreeing that exceptions can be useful. I'm just disagreeing that what is exceptional vs. what is regular is a well defined thing.