Should a Perl constructor return an undef or a "invalid" object?
Posted
by DVK
on Stack Overflow
See other posts from Stack Overflow
or by DVK
Published on 2009-09-30T13:14:52Z
Indexed on
2010/05/14
1:24 UTC
Read the original article
Hit count: 440
Question:
What is considered to be "Best practice" - and why - of handling errors in a constructor?.
"Best Practice" can be a quote from Schwartz, or 50% of CPAN modules use it, etc...; but I'm happy with well reasoned opinion from anyone even if it explains why the common best practice is not really the best approach.
As far as my own view of the topic (informed by software development in Perl for many years), I have seen three main approaches to error handling in a perl module (listed from best to worst in my opinion):
Construct an object, set an invalid flag (usually "
is_valid
" method). Often coupled with setting error message via your class's error handling.Pros:
Allows for standard (compared to other method calls) error handling as it allows to use
$obj->errors()
type calls after a bad constructor just like after any other method call.Allows for additional info to be passed (e.g. >1 error, warnings, etc...)
Allows for lightweight "redo"/"fixme" functionality, In other words, if the object that is constructed is very heavy, with many complex attributes that are 100% always OK, and the only reason it is not valid is because someone entered an incorrect date, you can simply do "
$obj->setDate()
" instead of the overhead of re-executing entire constructor again. This pattern is not always needed, but can be enormously useful in the right design.
Cons: None that I'm aware of.
Return "
undef
".Cons: Can not achieve any of the Pros of the first solution (per-object error messages outside of global variables and lightweight "fixme" capability for heavy objects).
Die inside the constructor. Outside of some very narrow edge cases, I personally consider this an awful choice for too many reasons to list on the margins of this question.
UPDATE: Just to be clear, I consider the (otherwise very worthy and a great design) solution of having very simple constructor that can't fail at all and a heavy initializer method where all the error checking occurs to be merely a subset of either case #1 (if initializer sets error flags) or case #3 (if initializer dies) for the purposes of this question. Obviously, choosing such a design, you automatically reject option #2.
© Stack Overflow or respective owner