On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, John Siracusa wrote:
>
> > Okay, but my point was that "standalone use" of db-specific date formatting
> > and parsing (i.e. in the absence of a $dbh) will be very rare (assuming we
> > do get it hooked into DBI as proposed). So while it should still certainly
> > be possible, don't spend too much time sweating over interface "sugar" for
> > db-specific parsing/formatting.
>
> _If_ the DBD modules incorporate support DateTime, then standalone usage
> _may_ be rare _after_ such incorporation. I would not necessarily bet on
> the first happening (it's really up to Tim B, and I have no idea what his
> position on this would be), nor would I expect adoption of this to be
> instantaneous, nor would I expect all existing users of such modules to
> rush out and upgrade just for this.
>
> So given all that, the API for standalone use matters, since it'll likely
> be visible to end users for a non-trivial amount of time!
>
> > > He might be a better person than I to start a discussion about this on
> > > dbi-dev. I'm on that list, so I'll chime in as needed.
> >
> > Okay, I'll pursue that.
>
> This might be premature. Tim B might not want to talk about vaporware
> DateTime code (yes, there's stuff in CVS, but it's far from done).
I'm with John on this. I think the earlier this is designed in, the
better. And I know Tim, a friend and former employee, would agree.
- nick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nick Tonkin {|8^)>
