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.
