On 2016-10-06 21:15, Darren Duncan wrote:
On 2016-10-06 8:43 AM, Matt S Trout wrote:
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:17:49PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
That would be good, also in light with how that sentence continues:
"I suspect what we need to try and achieve is to get DBIC a bit more
decentralised - have it be a specific framework build atop a
more-like-Plack-for-DB-stuff - but you already know that's what I
have in mind and we both already know it's going to be a big-ass job
and we'll see if it pans out or not."
My own near term planned contributions to DBIC are precisely what
you said above. They would constitute a more-like-Plack-for-DB
ecosystem and in particular they should benefit DBIC by optimizing
it more for maintainability, so it is easier for others to add
features or make changes or otherwise just be more confident that it
works properly. If things go as I hope, this should start to land
in about a month.
I think anything that's in that sort of vicinity is likely to be a big
enough set of changes that it'll (a) need to wait until whatever new
administration we end up with is settled in (b) need a decent RFC
process
and advance discussion of the risk/reward trade-offs involved.
After all, when I say "big-ass job" I'm generally not kidding about
that,
and at this point it looks like it's not only going to be a big-ass job,
but a big-ass job we're going to have to conduct without the help of the
person I was relying on being the other half of the architecture team
for
it.
So, I mean, "cool" but also "this is going to need serious
discussion" and
especially "please don't get your hopes up about 'near term'".
Not to worry, and I agree.
The first version of the thing that I was intending to land in the
short term was only intended to be, on its own, classified as a green
field experiment or proof of concept. It would NOT by any means be
intended for production as is.
Basically I am working on a Plack-for-DB as an independent project,
and I was going to use an experimental fork of DBIC (on GitHub) as an
initial test case by roughly replacing DBIC guts to use that project
while using the fact that DBIC's pristine automated test suite as a
validation that DBIC still behaves correctly with the changed internals.
The new administration of DBIC can then use this working proof of
concept in their discussions on how they want to formally evolve
DBIC. My experiment would constitute an RFC for how would you like to
use my Plack-for-DB, or adapt its design, to implement DBIC features
that were long desired but not provided.
-- Darren Duncan
Isn't DBI 'Plack-for-DB'?
_______________________________________________
List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive:
http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk
*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*
T-Systems Austria GesmbH Rennweg 97-99, 1030 Wien
Handelsgericht Wien, FN 79340b
*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*
Notice: This e-mail contains information that is confidential and may be
privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then
delete this e-mail immediately.
*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*
_______________________________________________
List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk
