>> I don't understand where is the complexity. We need Koha::Module
>> packages. We cannot put all our code into
>> Koha::Schema::Result::Module.
>> Why everyone is afraid of abstraction layers?
>
>
> We *don't* need Koha::Module packages for everything! My point is that DBIC
> provides us with an abstraction layer already! Wrapping a DBIC class in
> another class provides no advantage and just obfuscates our code, increases
> hardware requirements, and leaves more room to introduce bugs. If we are
> just going to use DBIC to avoid writing direct sql queries, we should be
> using something like Fey instead.
Give me examples please: Which "modules" don't need specific packages?
IMO, these ones should have their own modules: Order, Supplier,
Biblio, Item, Issue, Authorised value, Suggestion, Library, Budget,
Fund, Patron.
> We are a collective of developers with many different styles and opinions.
I completely agree with that :)
That fact is that DBIC has been pushed into Koha 1 year ago and we
don't have any plan. I tried several times and my patches have just
been rejected.
We never had this discussion (I mean a real/constructive discussion),
nobody gives examples.
I really would like someone shows me what he has in mind, like I did
for Koha::Acquisition::[Order|Bookseller].
> We often have very different approaches to how we implement new features. If
> we go down this path of wrapping DBIC in another abstraction layer, we
> simply continue down this patch of having many different bespoke
> implementations. If we use dbic as our abstraction layer, we remove much of
> that issue.
I we reach an agreement, we can do what we want.
I hope some of you will be in Cordoba in 3 weeks! :)