On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 05:31:46PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote: > > First, a DBI v2 suggestion: > > I strongly suggest that the standard DBI v2 interface have > native/standard support for named bind variables, in the SQL-1999 > style like ":foo".
I hope that will become practical when preparse() is implemented. > Second, about the "Unified test suite": > > I suggest that this is not a trivial task I suggest you're right. > considering that a > thorough test suite would try to exercise all of a database engine's > capabilities to make sure they can be accessed properly, being able > to take any valid input and return any type of output. Note that the test suite will not be trying to test the database, just the driver. And only those parts of the driver behaviour mandated by the DBI spec. Drivers will still need their own tests for any driver-specific behaviour. Also note that the "Unified test suite" is a long term goal. DBI v2.0 is really about infrastructure to the DBI and drivers to make such things possible. It's not going to happen overnight. > More to the point, I propose that the Rosetta API be used > by the unified test suite so that suite can be more effective at work > and easier to develop. > I plan to upload the first FUNCTIONAL version of Rosetta, with the > Validator module that proves it, within the next few days, or at the > latest, a few days prior to OSCON (more likely). Then you can > actually try it out and see if it provides a valid point of departure > for the Unified Test Suite being discussed just after at OSCON. I'm not keen on adding another layer of abstration into the mix for the test suite. However, I will look at it. Tim.
