W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Error handling description (Re: First agenda proposal webrtc telco)

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:58:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBP0mEwto+UP0D0un-YRNyvROd6+nu4++iiNBcZrY9A6ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, public-webrtc@w3.org
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
> On 08/27/2012 04:33 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Stefan Hakansson LK
>> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps we should change this; instead have more frequent telcos with
>>> fewer
>>> topic which we cover in depth. I would certainly be open for that if the
>>> WG
>>> (and my co-chair) thinks it is a good idea. And it would be natural to
>>> focus
>>> on covering the issues (in priority order) that block implementation in
>>> those meetings.
>>
>> For my money, the best use of telcos is to resolve issues which aren't
>> getting
>> resolved on the list.
>>
>> My priorities may not match anyone else's but here are the things
>> that I think are high priority (as in they are questions that are already
>> holding up implementation):
>>
>> - A complete description of error handling. I.e., which functions throw
>> exceptions, which have error callbacks. Do the functions which have
>> error callbacks ever throw exceptions? What is the state of affairs
>> after an error has occurred? Full disclosure: my position is that
>> any given API call should have exactly one error reporting mechanism.
>>
> Eric, can you point to some API that describes its error handling clearly
> enough that we can use it as a pattern?
>
> This one's been bothering me for a while, in that I see the need, but not
> how to answer it (or a volunteer to write a proposal).

You mean a Web API? My model here is unix man pages which pretty
much describe everything that can happen and exactly what errors
are returned.

In terms of a proposal, I think the issue here is that it's not a discrete thing
but rather a set of principles (prefer callbacks over exceptions, only one
type of error handling per function, etc.) and then a detailed application
to each operation. I'd be willing to do this, but I don't really want to do
it and then have it turn out that people hate my principles.

Perhaps what would make sense would be to enumerate those principles,
try one or two function points, and then see what people think? I would
be willing to do that.

-Ekr
Received on Monday, 27 August 2012 14:59:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 August 2012 14:59:56 GMT