I'm working to merge rel-1-2 and main branch, and am not happy. It's really a hard and bad job. I'm in addorder.pl for instance. And i realise some API changed and some didn't. For example, newbiblio need a hash, while modbiblio still needs 5 vars, separated by "," I think in 1.2.2 version, we had better change one to have only 1 method, as it's important to have a clear method that can be memorized. Note in main trunk, both newbiblio and modbiblio use the hash :-\\\\ I don't correct the rel-1-2 to avoid introducing a bug in 1.2.2, but i think our 1.2 release manager should take a look at this problem for 1.2.3... -- Paul
Ahh, the beginnings of a coding standard are beginning to form ... On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, paul POULAIN wrote:
I'm working to merge rel-1-2 and main branch, and am not happy. It's really a hard and bad job.
I'm in addorder.pl for instance. And i realise some API changed and some didn't. For example, newbiblio need a hash, while modbiblio still needs 5 vars, separated by "," I think in 1.2.2 version, we had better change one to have only 1 method, as it's important to have a clear method that can be memorized. Note in main trunk, both newbiblio and modbiblio use the hash :-\\\\
My cut at this (if we're not going to do OO perl, and for performance that might be better) is that we should probably move towards passing hashes. Is this reasonable to people? Shall we make it a standard? Comments?
I don't correct the rel-1-2 to avoid introducing a bug in 1.2.2, but i think our 1.2 release manager should take a look at this problem for 1.2.3...
This is probably a good move. I'd encourage others who find things like this to take the same approach. Let's discuss the issue and let the release manager(s) come to a final decision. thanks, -pate
-- Paul
------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/ _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/koha-devel
On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 10:57:52AM -0400, Pat Eyler wrote:
I'm working to merge rel-1-2 and main branch, and am not happy.
And i realise some API changed and some didn't. For example, newbiblio need a hash, while modbiblio still needs 5 vars, separated by ","
Note in main trunk, both newbiblio and modbiblio use the hash :-\\\\
My cut at this (if we're not going to do OO perl, and for performance that might be better) is that we should probably move towards passing hashes. Is this reasonable to people? Shall we make it a standard? Comments?
I think the hash is the best idea. I think we need some more documentation (or clearer definition of some sort) of the internal data model, which will be more complicated with 1.4. For example, "biblio vs. biblioitem" is going to be messier, I expect. Keeping the API's exactly the same between 1.2 and 1.4 sounds great, except for the fact that the data isn't at all the same. With almost any field repeatable in MARC, unlike currently, it will be interesting. The hash will be the best hope I think for open-ended data flexibility in the API. - Alan ---- Alan Millar --==> am12@bolis.com <==--
participants (3)
-
Alan Millar -
Pat Eyler -
paul POULAIN