[Koha-bugs] [Bug 7417] Include alternate forms from authorities in bibliographic searches

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.koha-community.org]

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=7417

--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart at biblibre.com> ---
(In reply to comment #17 and comment #13)

> My experience with Moose and CGI is that it's kind of slow. This seems like
> a huge problem on something as core as authority and bibliographic record
> objects. Also, after I tried to get the solr code working on my system Moose
> no longer functions. Choosing between core functionality (with a version of
> Moose that installs) and Solr (with a complex install procedure that will
> presumably leave Moose not working elsewhere) seems like a bad choice.

Yes, it is a debian packages problem. Not easy to solve :-/
It for what I speak about Moo (a minimalist Moose, light-weight, less
dependencies, etc.)
In all cases it is a decision to have after a global discussion.

> It's easy to do a follow up to change the name. If you tell me what you'd
> like it called, I will do a follow-up that changes the name. I think it
> should probably be Koha::DataObject::Authority, based on the RFC, but I
> decided to just call it "Koha::Authority" until I had a second opinion.

It seems this modification will be removing all ambiguity.

> > For new files, I think a best practice is to use "use Modern::Perl" instead
> > of "use strict; use warnings;"
> > But nothing is written on the wiki. You are free to keep these lines.
> I'm not attached to them. :)

Great, no discussion :)

> > Before introducing new important classes (as Authority) in the Koha
> > namespace, I think it is important to start a global discussion. What do we
> > want for this new namespace and for this rewriting ?
> I think we want it to work, and provide much-needed features.

Hum yes, but it is not precise.
I didn't wait an exact answer :) (for now...)

> I don't think I see the benefit here. Don't get me wrong, I really like the
> idea of Moose, but the speed issue, and the errors every time I try to load
> it, make me think that we're better off using Class::Accessor, which we
> already use elsewhere in Koha to great success.

If we have 2 modules to change when we will be choosing, it would be easy.
If we have 15 modules using Moose, Class:Accessor and whatever, we will
reproduce a new C4 shambles :-/

For me, this patch can passed QA if the module are moved (Koha::Authority =>
Koha::DataObject::Authority).

But I think using Class::Accessor is not what we want. We should (re)rewrite
modules using it.

I hope you understand my goal is not to be annoy you or to waste your time !
;-)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.