- Koha-devel - lists.koha-community.org

RE : Re: XML processing
by Henri-Damien LAURENT 12 Nov '10

12 Nov '10

Other reason is that deserializing from xml rather than iso2709 is WAY slower and proc intensive. It would not be a problem is any setup would CORRECTLY and SENSIBLY use XSLT. But since XSLT.pm is what it is ie taking marc record, editing, tranforms to xml before processing xslt, this process would only be slower if we used xml. Moreover the main reason why record are bigger than 9999 bytes is because of items. It is proven that it would really be HEALTHY to remove them. So the problem wouls not exist any longer. My 2 cts. -- Henri-Damien Laurent Le 12 nov. 2010, 7:55 AM, "Frédéric Demians" <frederic(a)tamil.fr> a écrit : > Here we go > > http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl4lib/2006/05/msg2369.html >From this email, as I understand it, it seems that here is the reason why Koha in search result deserialize MARC records from their ISO2709 representation rather than their MARCXML. If we were able to use marcxml, the 99,999 limitation for MARC record size could be exceed. And we would have one less reason to move to SolR--notwithstanding the other reasons to move to. -- Frédéric _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel(a)lists.koha-comm...

3 2

XML processing
by Clay Fouts 12 Nov '10

12 Nov '10

Hi, all. Can anyone point me to documentation about why Expat is considered incompatible with Koha (and I'm assuming MARC::File::XML). I know there are dire warnings against such, but what are the test cases where it fails? Expat is considerably faster than the LibXML implementation, and it would be a shame if we were continuing to avoid using it without due cause. I've been unable to detect issues with it in my anecdotal test cases thus far. Thank you, Clay

4 6

While we are cleaning house on RFCs and Enhancement Requests
by Chris Nighswonger 11 Nov '10

11 Nov '10

I note that there are some 620 open enhancement requests in Bugzilla. Here is the search: http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&… It might be good to take some time and see if any of these belong to you and update the status of them, as well as consider adding the appropriate RFC to the wiki using the template available here: http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Category:RFCs#RFC_Template Kind Regards, Chris

1 0

z3950NormalizeAuthor
by Galen Charlton 11 Nov '10

11 Nov '10

Hi, Question for the UNIMARC users among us - what is the purpose of this system preference? I can make out what it's doing in terms of copying over selected 7XX values to the UNIMARC author tag, but why is this necessary? Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton gmcharlt(a)gmail.com

1 0

Tests failing due to "none-mandatory" modules not being installed
by Chris Nighswonger 11 Nov '10

11 Nov '10

I've noticed recently that several tests fail if one elects not to install the so-called "optional" dependencies of Koha. It seems to me that this is undesirable behavior, but then, I may be missing something. So.... is this desirable, or should tests of code requiring "optional" deps be conditioned to skip parts that would fail due to non-installation of these deps? Kind Regards, Chris

1 0

about Unimarc and Analytical record implementation
by Zeno Tajoli 11 Nov '10

11 Nov '10

Hi to all, about this request of Henri-Damien on koha-patches > Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:59:43 +0100 > From: LAURENT Henri-Damien <henridamien.laurent(a)biblibre.com> > Subject: Re: [Koha-patches] [PATCH] Analytical record: improved code > to create analytical record from an item > To: koha-patches(a)lists.koha-community.org > Message-ID: <4CDB15CF.2080104(a)biblibre.com> [...] > This is marc21 only. > Could you be so kind as to at least use some variables ? > Or create the variable and then populate it ? I'm the person that will do those changes. I wrote to Savitra and Amit and I said that I will do this type of changes. So you will see them. -- Zeno Tajoli CILEA - Segrate (MI) tajoliAT_SPAM_no_prendiATcilea.it (Indirizzo mascherato anti-spam; sostituisci qaunto tra AT con @)

1 0

3.2.x Release Maintenance Procedures
by Chris Nighswonger 10 Nov '10

10 Nov '10

During the general IRC meeting today, a question came up concerning how I plan to push patches to 3.2.x. Here is the general procedure I intend to follow, but am certainly reserving my right to change it as necessary. 1. The general policy will be to cherry-pick/merge patches from HEAD as they appear and are applicable to 3.2.x. Besides the fact that bugs in 3.2.x are also bugs in HEAD, these patches have already passed QA and are considered stable, so this greatly reduces the workload. 2. At such a time as a merge conflict should occur due to the eventually inevitable divergence of 3.2.x and HEAD, *the submitter* of a patch will be responsible to ensure that the patch applies to both branches (HEAD and 3.2.x) *before* submission, and if the patch does not apply to the 3.2.x branch, *the submitter* will be responsible to take whatever action is necessary to make it apply before submission. This will most likely mean submitting two versions of the patch: one for HEAD and one for 3.2.x. This responsibility is an ethical one as it is not ethical to expect the release maintainer who is one person to make the many patches apply when the submitter who is one person merely has to make one patch apply. One thing which will greatly reduce the burden of #2 is the RM's planned use of topic branches. Merge conflicts are much easier to manage and far less overwhelming with the use of topic branches. Suggestions and opinions are welcome. Kind Regards, Chris Nighswonger Koha 3.2 Release Maintainer

2 2

A Discussion on A Policy Setting Forth Standards of Code Submission, etc. [WAS: RFCs for 3.4 from BibLibre (serials & acquisitions)]
by Chris Nighswonger 10 Nov '10

10 Nov '10

Starting a new thread because this is indirectly related to Paul's request. 2010/11/2 Paul Poulain <paul.poulain(a)biblibre.com> > Hello, > > I have filed RFCs for all enhancements you can expect from BibLibre in the > next few months. All of them are sponsored (by Saint-Etienne University), > and will have to be delivered to the library for a "go live" in May-2011 > > * You can find them on the wiki (search biblibre rfc for3.4) : > http://wiki.koha-community.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redir… > * You can also find them on bugzilla : i've added a saved search, shared > with everybody, called "Koha 3.4 enhancements". > > They are only related to serials and acquisitions. > > What's the next step ? > * read the RFCs > * comment them (on the wiki or on bugzilla) > * we will probably propose/organise an IRC meeting to discuss & get any > feedback for all those incoming developments. None of them (except the solR > one) has started, so if you want to give us an advice, add something, ... > it's now or it may be too late ;-) > > As a vendor-neutral voice, I would like to encourage everyone who has an vested interest in these areas and the best interests of the Koha project at heart to actively participate and respond to these RFC's. It seems that often there is little dicussion, etc. on RFCs in the community. And even when there is discussion, etc. it is often unclear if a consensus is reached (at least publicly). Furthermore, I would encourage vendors and others who post RFC's to do so with a willingness to adapt, adjust, bend, compromise, and/or <your-favorite-term-goes-here> to positions on those RFC's which may be different but are clearly the consensus of the community at large. Vendors may and often do have the resources to implement "what they want," however, this is not in the spirit of cooperation which this project so greatly depends upon for its success. Clients of vendors should be educated during the RFQ process as to this aspect of open source, and their expectations managed accordingly, imho. I would also suggest that we implement a policy that states in some agreeable way that code/features will not be pushed to master which have not passed through a review and consensus process by the community and the RM (as the elected head of development by the community). No one excepting possibly the RM should presuppose that their code is guaranteed inclusion by default. Secondly, I would suggest that we implement a strong recommendation that larger shops submit timely RFC's *prior to* beginning work on code and then promote discussion on those RFC's. This recommendation should with some lesser strength suggest that everyone submit timely RFC's to maximize productivity and usefulness of the resources of all concerned. Thirdly, I would suggest a stated policy (and such a policy is presently in place practically) which requires all submissions to pass through a QA branch and receive at a minimum one sign-off prior to being pushed into master. This policy should also assign a certain amount of responsibility to the one signing off to avoid "frivolous" sign-offs. It should also, perhaps, include a restriction that the required sign-off for pushing to master be a disinterested developer perhaps from another vendor or the community at large. This is a discussion we need to have. I would encourage everyone to invest time (the operative term here is 'invest') in this discussion. Kind Regards, Chris Nighswonger Koha 3.2.x Release Maintainer

12 23

Re: [Koha-devel] [Koha] Koha - Trouble loading patron files NOT solved
by Chris Nighswonger 09 Nov '10

09 Nov '10

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Chris Nighswonger <cnighswonger(a)foundations.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:54 PM, MJ Ray <mjr(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: >> So I think that error means that either @columns contains an undefined >> value, or that $csvkeycol{$key} isn't defined but we test that it is >> so that shouldn't be the problem. How can @columns contain an >> undefined value? Maybe if a line doesn't have enough fields? >> >> Right now I'd be checking that CSV file very very closely. > > One of the problems *is* the CSV, but that's because the instructions > are not clear. Several fields in the borrowers table are NOT NULL > which means that several columns in the CSV which advertise themselves > as *not* mandatory are, indeed, mandatory. I'm in the process of > correcting this along with making the patron import tool more > informative as to errors which occur during attempted imports. I hope > to have this work finished and submitted the first part of this week. This patch should resolve these issues: http://git.koha-community.org/gitweb/?p=wip/koha-fbc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/… It applies against the current HEAD, but should apply against 3.2.x as well. Once it is pushed to HEAD, I'll back-port to 3.2.x. In the meantime, testing and sign-off would be appreciated. (CC' ing the devel list to get more coverage.) Kind Regards, Chris

1 0

Re: [Koha-devel] Webcam Barcode reader
by Dobrica Pavlinusic 09 Nov '10

09 Nov '10

On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:28:04AM -0500, Galen Charlton wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Dobrica Pavlinusic <dpavlin(a)rot13.org> wrote: > > p.s. additional benefit of zxing is that it has support for codabar > > which we have on our books, but that is specific for our library. > > Actually, quite a few libraries use Codabar, so zxing would be of broader use. Good point. However, I should note for future reference that zxing by default doesn't have Codabar enabled, so it has to be compiled using following patch: http://code.google.com/p/zxing/issues/detail?id=538 -- Dobrica Pavlinusic 2share!2flame dpavlin(a)rot13.org Unix addict. Internet consultant. http://www.rot13.org/~dpavlin

2 1