Re: Need help with a simple (I think) Perl script

sln@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 30 May 2008 18:44:40 GMT, xhoster@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Ben Bullock wrote:

One can look for the messages produced by "die" in the error log
too, and if the code is in use by people other than the CGI
programmers (which it probably will be) it's probably a better bet
to not use the above outside of testing, since it will produce
something meaningless and confusing.

I wouldn't find it meaningless and confusing. It is quite clear that an
error has occurred, that is neither meaningless nor confusing. It gives
extra information, but I think I (being hypothetically not a CGI
programmer) would know enough to expect that this is meaningful to
someone else, if not to me, and that if I wish to discuss the error with
that someone else, it might be helpful to quote parts of it to them, so
in that way it is meaningful as well as not confusing.


But, YOU won't be there.

I won't be where?

The whole idea is programmed error recovery.

Presumably we've already tried that to the extent it can be done. Simple
errors that can be recovered should of course be recovered. But many
errors can't be recovered. If if a file that is critical can't be
accessed, or if a database that is critical cannot be connected to, then
there is no recovery to be done. Pretending otherwise is not error
recovery, it is just launching an infinitude of crap in which you refuse to
acknowledge the existence of a problem which obviously does exist.

To just die, unless you can't recover is not an option in the corporate
world. Built in recovery algo's are manditory in the money world.

My paycheck never seems to bounce, so the world I live in seems to be money
world.

Xho

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked
advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate
this fact.
.

Quantcast