[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 #89 from Paul Poulain <paul.poulain at biblibre.com> ---
(In reply to Galen Charlton from comment #87)
> I'm setting this bug back to 'In discussion', as I believe that the Unicode
> issue that Paul was running into is a red herring.
> 
> I have significant reservations about the the POC patches proposed earlier
> today.  In particular they assume that the namespace RFC has been agreed to
> -- and at this point, I do not believe that we actually have consensus on it.
> 
> More immediately, I have reservations about the Koha::DB layer. 
> DBIx::Class::Schema::Loader already provides pre-built data acccess classes
> -- which is the point of using it in the first place.  The Koha::DB::Branch
> class as proposed would add yet another file to edit whenever a new column
> is added to a table.  Rather than doing that, I think we should rely on
> misc/devel/update_dbix_class_files.pl, and correct the schema as needed so
> that we can avoid ever doing manual updates to the files under Koha/Schema.
We spoke of it already, at KohaCon12 In Edinburgh, and on koha-devel. See
http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Koha_Namespace_RFC

However, I agree it's worth taking time to discuss it, because a lot of things
will depend on the decision we take here.

> I think we should focus on getting DBIx::Class::Schema::Loader support
> ready, including sussing out any necessary schema updates and dealing with
> the DBIx::Class maintainer's recommendation to not use
> DBIC_DONT_VALIDATE_RELS.  I think for the moment code that exercises
> DBIx::Class can rely on $schema->resultset('Table'), although if people have
> a real problem with the length of that construct, I think some AUTOLOAD
> magic would be preferable to manually maintaining an extra layer of DB
> access classes.
what do you mean by "length of that construct" ? it's slow (length=duration) ?
verbose ? something else ?

I'll have a look at any proposal & make counter-proposals or additions, until
we reach the optimal way to do it.
Chris, you're probably more experienced than I'm, so, your help is warmly
welcomed ;-)

> I think that bug 8309 (and the mailing list) is a better place for the
> discussion of the proposed namespace scheme.  To help keep the discussion in
> this bug focused, I've obsoleted all of the patches except for the squash
> (and thanks for doing that, Paul!)

No problem, I was not expecting those patches to be pushed though, they were
more a POC than real code.
(I think those patches are still usefull to address the encoding problem)

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