John Davidson

Message:

Sometimes we have functions which aren't intended to print (ie. output) anything. However, if some code within them throws an error, this will sometimes be output. That'll mean that this error shows up in our final HTML at whatever point the function was run. To avoid this, it occurs to me that it might be a good idea to put ob_start(); at the start of the function, and ob_end(); at the end (or before the return statement).

Is this a bad idea? Is it good practice? Are there pitfalls? Should I use ob_end_clean() instead?

How nested output buffering works seems relevant, but I don't understand this. It just occurs to me that my function might be called when another function has run ob_start(); but not yet run ob_end();.

An example might be in WordPress or Drupal.

---

My Answer:
't directly output content?

Yes, there are potential pitfalls to using output buffering in functions that don't directly output content. Some of these pitfalls include:

1. Increased memory usage: Output buffering can consume additional memory, especially if large amounts of content are being buffered. This can lead to increased memory usage and potentially slow down the performance of your application.

2. Potential for conflicts: Output buffering can sometimes conflict with other parts of your code, especially if you are using multiple levels of buffering or if there are other functions that rely on direct output.

3. Difficulty in debugging: Output buffering can make it more difficult to debug your code, as it can obscure the order in which content is being output and make it harder to trace the source of any issues.

4. Maintenance challenges: Using output buffering in functions that don't directly output content can make your code harder to maintain and understand, especially for other developers who may need to work on the code in the future.

Overall, while output buffering can be a useful tool in certain situations, it should be used judiciously and with caution to avoid these potential pitfalls.