Sorry for the delay replying, and the top-post.
All sounds good. Thanks!
Tim.
On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 10:28:29AM +0000, Jens Rehsack wrote:
> Hi Tim, hi DBI developers,
>
> inspired by the issues reported against DBD::DBM and SQL::Statement
> regarding Test-Database, I checked SQL::Statement, DBD::File and
> DBD::DBM to figure out where it fails.
>
> I found several bugs which are fixed for now (even if I wouldn't
> tend to release this time). I'd like to get your opinion about
> following two changes:
>
> 1) Introduce a DBI::SQL::Nano::Table, deriving either from
> SQL::Eval::Table or DBI::SQL::Nano::Table_ - like
> DBI::SQL::Nano::Statement does.
>
> Derive DBD::File::Table from DBI::SQL::Nano::Table.
>
> 2) Add 2 additional tests (naming proposals) which test DBD::DBM
> and DBD::Gofer using SQL::Statement, if available.
> To be honest, I would let the 2 new tests use
> "$ENV{DBI_SQL_NANO} = 1" and remove this line from t/50dbm.t
> and t/85gofer.t
> The tests could be named t/zqs_$1
>
> Following changes are planned to do before next DBI release:
> - Synchronize DBD::DBM::Statement and DBD::DBM::Table with DBD::File
> classes
> - allow case insensitive table -> file mapping for tables without ""
> (might need flags for the statement instance)
>
>
> Jens
