Tim Bunce wrote: > 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? > > Tim. > >
I've no idea how many people use DBD::AnyData. I searched blogs etc and didn't find much but then the same search for some DBDs I know are used a lot didn't find much either. A lot of progress seems to be being made with DBD::CSV, DBD::File and DBD::DBM buy Jens and Merijn and it would be a shame to slow this because DBD::AnyData needs work to catch up. Tim's solution seems like an reasonable way around this for now so long as it is followed up in the near future. Martin
