On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 07:56:14PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: > 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.
Sorry Jens, I'm not sure what you're saying here. Tim.
