http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14694
--- Comment #25 from Kyle M Hall <k...@bywatersolutions.com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #22)
> (In reply to Kyle M Hall from comment #20)
> > > > ::: Koha/Biblio.pm
> > > > @@ +41,5 @@
> > > > > +or list of Koha::Item objects in list context.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +=cut
> > > > > +
> > > > > +sub items {
> > > >
> > > > Wouldn't be better to use a DBIx::Class relation?
> > > > Something like bug 14819.
> >
> > No, we want to return a Koha::Object object, not a DBIC object. It would be
> > most confusing if a Koha::Object method were to return a DBIC object instead
> > of a Koha Object.
>
> And what about using the _wrap method?
> I am afraid that we are going to introduce quickly circular dependencies in
> the Koha namespace if we follow this way.
The _wrap method would still require including Koha::Items, so that does not
solve anything. In addition, you are assuming circular dependencies are always
a bad thing. It is important to realize our objects are loosely coupled, rather
than tightly coupled. Because of this, we could re-engineer Koha::Items to be
anything we want inside, it's a black box. Koha::Biblio doesn't care how
Koha::Items works, nor should it. In fact, using the _wrap method makes the
objects more tightly coupled, as we are now accessing private methods and tying
the objects together with a specific implementation.
If we *really* want to decouple all of our objects, we need to build a factory
to create all our objects whether they are Koha::Object(s) based or not.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
_______________________________________________
Koha-bugs mailing list
Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org
http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs
website : http://www.koha-community.org/
git : http://git.koha-community.org/
bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
