David Nicol wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Darren Duncan <dar...@darrenduncan.net> wrote:
So what say you?
I think you can do this without any change to DBI.
You have your own DBI-like framework; you could declare that anything
that passes your conformance suite
is compliant, and offer low-impact patches to your favorite DBD
modules where the glue is too thick for your
aesthetics.
My own DBI-like project is a red herring for this discussion.
How mandatory, currently, is the "mandatory shared codebase?" Are
there really traps and snares preventing
a different framework from using DBD modules? I'm presuming that there
aren't; ICBW.
My proposal here is all about today's DBI users, not my own DBI-like project.
In fact, the whole point of my proposal is that there doesn't need to be a
"framework" at all. No common piece of code you need to use any database.
I mentioned PSGI for a reason. PSGI is a *protocol*, not a framework. You
don't need any specific piece of code to use PSGI.
I could have said HTTP etc instead, but PSGI was more appropriate because it
basically defines a protocol consisting of a routine API that takes arguments
formatted a certain way as input and has a result formatted a certain way, and
no dependencies than Perl itself.
So getting away from the "framework" mentality is the point here.
-- Darren Duncan
P.S. I expressly do *not* call my project a "framework" either.
