> either a bug or a feature. In the Fusebox 4 & Flip book by
> Jeff Petters on page 242 it says "It is good practice to
> always have at least a processError plugin that handles errors ...."
I like the ability to handle these FUSEBOX exceptions myself, although I do
not like wrapping cftry around the core file include. It would be if there
was a more elegant way to handle this, I do agree. However, until that
happens, the best you are going to get it to catch the FUSEBOX exceptions
and go from there.... Which I do not see as being all that bad to be honest.
> If it is good practice for us to do handle errors, then in my
> opinion these types of errors should be handled by the core
> files and not me.
Why not you? The errors are explicitly thrown and are catchable, do you just
not like the fact that you have to catch them and handle it? It could go
either way here I guess... What would happen if you did want to handle them
yourself but the core files handled it for you, then would you not just be
fudging something else to fit your needs?
> I don't want this to read as a flame. Just want to show I did
> some home work on the subject. Maybe I haven't done enough. *shrug*
No flame taken :-)
I see you did some homework on the subject, I am just giving you my opinion
and ways of doing things.
FB4.1 is in the works from my understanding, hopefully it won't take long.
:-)
Enjoy the weekend!
Mike
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
