http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=8798 --- Comment #89 from Paul Poulain <paul.poulain@biblibre.com> --- (In reply to Galen Charlton from comment #87)
I'm setting this bug back to 'In discussion', as I believe that the Unicode issue that Paul was running into is a red herring.
I have significant reservations about the the POC patches proposed earlier today. In particular they assume that the namespace RFC has been agreed to -- and at this point, I do not believe that we actually have consensus on it.
More immediately, I have reservations about the Koha::DB layer. DBIx::Class::Schema::Loader already provides pre-built data acccess classes -- which is the point of using it in the first place. The Koha::DB::Branch class as proposed would add yet another file to edit whenever a new column is added to a table. Rather than doing that, I think we should rely on misc/devel/update_dbix_class_files.pl, and correct the schema as needed so that we can avoid ever doing manual updates to the files under Koha/Schema. We spoke of it already, at KohaCon12 In Edinburgh, and on koha-devel. See http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Koha_Namespace_RFC
However, I agree it's worth taking time to discuss it, because a lot of things will depend on the decision we take here.
I think we should focus on getting DBIx::Class::Schema::Loader support ready, including sussing out any necessary schema updates and dealing with the DBIx::Class maintainer's recommendation to not use DBIC_DONT_VALIDATE_RELS. I think for the moment code that exercises DBIx::Class can rely on $schema->resultset('Table'), although if people have a real problem with the length of that construct, I think some AUTOLOAD magic would be preferable to manually maintaining an extra layer of DB access classes. what do you mean by "length of that construct" ? it's slow (length=duration) ? verbose ? something else ?
I'll have a look at any proposal & make counter-proposals or additions, until we reach the optimal way to do it. Chris, you're probably more experienced than I'm, so, your help is warmly welcomed ;-)
I think that bug 8309 (and the mailing list) is a better place for the discussion of the proposed namespace scheme. To help keep the discussion in this bug focused, I've obsoleted all of the patches except for the squash (and thanks for doing that, Paul!)
No problem, I was not expecting those patches to be pushed though, they were more a POC than real code. (I think those patches are still usefull to address the encoding problem) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.