I'd like to see the atomic update files continue to be perl, not SQL.  SQL is often sufficient to do an update, but not always, particular if we're swapping out one implementation of a feature for a more generic one.

Also, I'd like to see 3 different subroutines/functions for each atomic update:

Check:  Logic to see if the change is actually required:  returns 0 or 1
Do:  just like what have now, makes the change
Undo:  undoes the change to the database, allowing rollback to previous code states (this would be a new function)


-Ian

2011/11/9 Mason James <mtj@kohaaloha.com>

On 2011-11-8, at 3:42 AM, MJ Ray wrote:

> Paul Poulain <paul.poulain@biblibre.com>
>> Let's say Limoges library has sponsored stuff that has resulted in
>> atomicupdate/limogeupdate.pl
> [...]
>> Does anyone see a problem with this new updatedatabase procedure ?
>
> The only problem that I can see is that we should encourage
> updates to be .sql not .pl files.

oooh, great idea!
i think this would simplify the proposed process even more

do other people agree?



_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
Koha-devel@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/



--
Ian Walls
Lead Development Specialist
ByWater Solutions
Phone # (888) 900-8944
http://bywatersolutions.com
ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com
Twitter: @sekjal