Default error handling

[kesla]

Yo!

What is the reasoning behind demanding each http-server to have it's own implementation of opts.error? Aren't most (if not all) of our modules going to be something like this:

error: function (err) {

            // HTTP handling
            this.res.statusCode = err.statusCode;
            this.res.end(JSON.stringify({msg: err.message}));

            // bunyan
            this.log.error({err: err});
        }

[AndreasMadsen]

I have already thought about it. But I wasn't sure if if it was a good idea, since there are so many possibilities:

this.res.end(JSON.stringify({msg: err.message}));
this.res.end(JSON.stringify({ message: err.message, name: err.name, stack: err.stack ));
this.res.end(err.stack);
this.res.end(err.message);
this.res.end('new ' + err.name + '(' + err.message + ');');

and a personal policy when I'm note sure:

make it a none-optional setting, do the extra boilerplate, after some time look over the different implementation and 1) create a default, 2) keep it as it is, 3) don't make it a setting.

Note: I feel perfectly fine having defaults for both error and fatal, but the argument:

Aren't most (if not all) of our modules going to be something like this: ...

Is in my opinion not very good, since this is treated as an external module and taking decisions only based on our needs isn't good.

Just to be constructive a argument not involving our needs could be:

The README example is quite long, that indicates that a lot of boilerplate is required. The amount of simple and significantly different solutions aren't many, lets implement a simple default error and fatal handler.

[kesla]

My post was not suppose to be meant as critique in any way - as you can see I gave it the label "question". I respect your knowledge and opinions and was honestly curious for your reasoning. I know that you would've included a default error & fatal-handlers if you found that to be a good idea.

We're going to take decisions that makes this a module that we like, that we like to work with. We're not creating http-modules that are super-duper-special, so please don't take any note about "our needs" so serious. But, I could probably have phrased myself a little bit better, so sorry about that.

[AndreasMadsen]

My post was not suppose to be meant as critique in any way

I knew that, and did try to write my comment in a way so that was clear.

[kesla]

Ok, sorry. Then it's just me who is tired :)