[SOLVED] trigger_error vs. error_log

[mottwsc]

I'm using php5 on linux and do not want to send any error messages to the user but instead to a log file.  Which is better in general for this purpose: trigger_error or error_log?

 

In certain cases, I'll also send an email notification on error.  For this, I'll use error_log.  Is this the best way to do this?

 

Thanks!

 

[trq]

Which is better in general for this purpose: trigger_error or error_log?

 

Doesn't really make sense. They both serve a completely different purpose.

[mottwsc]

It appears that they are/can be used to re-direct errors when you do not want them sent to the user.  I'm trying to determine the pros and cons of one vs. the other.

 

Could anyone be more helpful / specific on this?

[mottwsc]

I've figured this out - thanks anyway.

[Dominic_108]

I know it's old, but I could not myself from making a comment. To say that error_log and trigger_error have completely different purposes and that the question made no sense is what made no sense. The question made perfect sense. Both uses the php ini directive error_log that sets a log file location, defaulting to the web server log if no value is set in error_log. So, they certainly have a related purpose. One  difference is that the error_log function will perform its duties regardless of the value set in the log_errors ini setting. It does not raise a PHP error, so it does not have a severity level. So, you have more control with trigger_error, but one might want to bypass this control and directly send to the log_error destination without raising a PHP error or warning, etc.