[Koha-bugs] [Bug 8798] Add the use of DBIx::Class

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

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=8798

--- Comment #68 from Paul Poulain <paul.poulain at biblibre.com> ---
(In reply to comment #67)
> > Jonathan & I had a short discussion about this patch & DBIC: we have the
> > same question: what's the next step once this patch is pushed ? We need to
> > have clear directions, in order to coordinate the effort & do as much
> > progress as possible in DBIC.
> 
> This a good question! I've already submitted a patch that uses DBIC, Bug
> 10493. It's interesting because I started writing using the standard C4 and
> Koha modules, but I was extremely surprised to find how much easier and
> quicker the development went once I switched to DBIC!
Have you seen my comment 57 and the other patch I made ? It also includes
rewrite for some admin/ scripts.
I agree that it's *much* easier ;-)
(feel free to rebase, and I've no problem with loosing my authorship on those
patches, if it can help things to go faster ;-) )

> I think we need to push as much logic into the DBIC classes as we can ( only
> the logic which sensibly should be there or course ). For example, I'm sure
> Koha::Schema::Result::Borrower is ripe for additional logic.
> C4::Members::IsMemberBlocked() could easily be replaced with
> $borrower->IsBlocked(). 
Agreed. OTOH, we must be carefull with the methods we include : not too much,
not too few. With the 3 level Business / DataObject / DB, I think things will
be easy to manage : as many Business as we need, as small as possible,
linked/linking to DO then DB.

> The only issue I see is we have 3 authors here. Elliot is no longer active
> in the community so I cannot speak for him, though I'm sure we can contact
> him about it. If a merge before push is necessary, I'd say he should retain
> the authorship line, considering this was originally his patch.
> 
> On the other hand, a squashed patch could be uploaded for QA purposes, and
> the individual patches pushed afterward. I think that should provide the QA
> clarity while retaining individual patch authorship.
I prefer the 2nd option for copyright purposes, but the 1st one for simplicity
& readability.

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