2010/6/23 Tim Bunce <tim.bu...@pobox.com>: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 04:18:27PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: >> >> Of course, another way could be to extract the SQL-engine interface >> from DBD::File into a DBI::DBD::SqlEngine and DBD::AnyData uses that >> without caring of DBD::File (for some time until we could do better). > >> That's why I ask: would it be very bad when DBI-1.612 would break >> DBD::AnyData for a limited amount of month (3-5) or should I (we?) >> investigate more effort to get a clean, running AnyData and >> DBD::AnyData out there with DBI-1.612? > > Rather than trying to get a "clean" DBD::AnyData, how about we aim for a > "dirty" one instead? > > DBD::AnyData says "use base qw( DBD::File );". The DBD::File that > shipped with DBI 1.611 could be copied into the DBD::AnyData distro > and renamed to DBD::AnyOldFile (and hacked internally to match). > Then DBD::AnyData could say "use base qw( DBD::AnyOldFile );" > > Not pretty, or clean, but possibly the basis of a workable solution?
That would be the DBI::DBD::SqlEngine (what is more or less the only real dependency). And this module is required for the next version of DBD::Sys, too. Jens
