[Koha-devel] [Koha] RFC for MARC holdings record support

[Ere Maijala]

There's now an initial patch available, so feel free to take a look at 
how much it touches areas waiting to be rewritten or cleaned. I don't 
feel it's very high impact, but then I'm the one hoping for this to be 
accepted. I'm ready to clean up any of the added code as necessary. It's 
currently styled in the way biblios are handled.

The impact on current codebase in numbers:

  C4/Biblio.pm                                       |  17 +
  C4/Items.pm                                        |   4 +-
  C4/Search.pm                                       |   8 +
  C4/XSLT.pm                                         |  33 +-
  acqui/z3950_search.pl                              |   2 +-
  admin/biblio_framework.pl                          |   5 +-
  catalogue/detail.pl                                |  10 +-
  cataloguing/addbiblio.pl                           |   2 +-
  cataloguing/addbooks.pl                            |   2 +-
  cataloguing/additem.pl                             |  11 +
  .../intranet-tmpl/prog/en/includes/cat-toolbar.inc |   4 +
  .../prog/en/modules/admin/biblio_framework.tt      |  22 +-
  .../en/modules/admin/preferences/cataloguing.pref  |   7 +
  .../prog/en/modules/catalogue/detail.tt            |  73 +-
  .../prog/en/modules/catalogue/moredetail.tt        |   2 +
  .../prog/en/modules/catalogue/results.tt           |  14 +
  .../opac-tmpl/bootstrap/en/modules/opac-detail.tt  |  28 +
  .../opac-tmpl/bootstrap/en/modules/opac-results.tt |  10 +
  .../bootstrap/en/xslt/MARC21slim2OPACResults.xsl   |  19 +-
  opac/opac-detail.pl                                |   7 +
  t/db_dependent/Koha/BiblioFrameworks.t             |   2 +

I think this is actually a pretty low number of changes, but then I've 
deliberately tried to keep the feature such that it doesn't affect 
current functionality.

MARC may die, and the underlying code can accommodate other formats too. 
But since there's no viable replacement for MARC holdings or a framework 
that would support those in Koha, I wouldn't consider MARC dead, nor do 
I see it dying anytime soon. It's tempting to try to define a more 
simple holdings format, but I believe that in real life it won't fulfil 
many of the requirements until it's evolved into a bad recreation of 
MARC holdings.

--Ere

Jonathan Druart kirjoitti 6.4.2018 klo 17.06:
> I am not sure I understand all the ramifications of this RFC, what it 
> implies (and I do not have time to dedicate to this right now), but I 
> feel like Marcel.
> It sounds like these changes will touch lot of areas in Koha that are 
> waiting to be rewritten/cleaned.
> We already have a lot of things waiting in our bug tracker, I would not 
> start another big work now.
> 
> And...Must not MARC die?
> 
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 at 04:26 Marcel de Rooy <M.de.Rooy at rijksmuseum.nl 
> <mailto:M.de.Rooy at rijksmuseum.nl>> wrote:
> 
>     If I am reading about possible impact on holds functionality, I
>     guess that we could better prioritize finishing REST API and moving
>     to DBIx/Koha::Object.
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Koha-devel mailing list
>     Koha-devel at lists.koha-community.org
>     <mailto:Koha-devel at lists.koha-community.org>
>     http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
>     website : http://www.koha-community.org/
>     git : http://git.koha-community.org/
>     bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Koha-devel mailing list
> Koha-devel at lists.koha-community.org
> http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
> website : http://www.koha-community.org/
> git : http://git.koha-community.org/
> bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
> 

-- 
Ere Maijala
Kansalliskirjasto / The National Library of Finland