Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>
>>>Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Carsten, do what you want, I'm really fed up with error handling.
>>>>I'll start to complain myself now, let's see if it helps.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So I count this as a +10. Thanks.
>>
>>It's a +1000 to have you write that code.
>>A -1000 for ranting.
>>
>>We know that to see error messages without problems we need to buffer
>>all the result and flush it at the end.
>>We all know that this decreases percieved performance and enhances
>>memory usage.
>>We all know that making this configurable is the right thing to do so we
>> have both possibilities.
>>
>>It was also said that making the response buffer bigger would have
>>solved the problem (see mail archives).
>>
>>Other than that, there was no veto IIRC on making this happen, above all
>>if it's configurable.
>>
>>While you are at it, remember that it is a TODO to make generators work
>>in handle-errors, remembering that redirects must be prohibited.
>>
>>There is no need to ask us all really, we had already discussed this
>>zillion times.
>>
>
> Sorry, but this is wrong - we had a vote on this and it got a "-1".
> So there is a need.
:-O
Can you please give me a link to it?
> And I really would like to see others doing this...(not you).
Sorry if I jump on this issue every time, thank you for your
understanding :-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
