On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Mark Tompsett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Greetings, > > Fey?! Please, let’s not add more technologies (Haskell that compiles to > Javascript) in for geekiness sake. > Heh, not Fay, Fey ; ) http://search.cpan.org/~drolsky/Fey-0.40/lib/Fey.pm > I have been reading this dialogue between Robin and Kyle and thinking to > myself, “Why was DBIC added in the first place? Was it not to increase > portability (where is that ‘it does not run on Postgresql!’ person) , > ‘simplify’ (at the cost of another learning curve) data access, and provide > a cleaner abstraction for data access?” So, why was it added? Was it added > to be more Object Oriented (OO) so we could use it in the way that is being > discussed? So, I’ll reiterate my question again, which I think will bring > some clarity to the discussion, what was the point of adding DBIC? > I had always thought it was yes to all those. We discussed the issues in Edinburgh. That's where the idea of adding another layer of abstraction was proposed and later discarded. > P.S. Abstractions are okay, but abstractions upon abstractions are ugly > for the initial learning curve. If you want people to join the coding > community, multiple levels of abstractions make it more difficult. > Agreed. That is why I'm making these suggestions. Kyle
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
