Ashley Pond V wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Peter Rabbitson <[email protected]> wrote:
I want to make sure I am getting this right - are you proposing that
we discuss drastically changing a stable API, potentially breaking
DBIC for hundreds if not thousands of users, all for the sake of
correctness? I am still not sure what the discussion scope is, thus
I'll reserve judgment until more details emerge.
For my own part, correctness is an *extremely* important goal for a
software project that wants to thrive over time. And things that
violate correctness or the principal of least surprise should go. They
limit future development efforts and scare away end-users and decision
makers. I will gladly accept a deprecation cycle if this turns out to
be something core devs believe is important.
I should have worded it differently, I meant "architectural correctness".
But I respectfully disagree with the part of your post about "violating
principle of least surprise". All mature APIs have warts, and DBIC is by
far no exception. While breaking compat to correct glaring deficiencies
in operation is crucial, breaking compat *just* for the sake of removing
such "the api is ugly" warts is unacceptable.
What started this thread wasn't a codepath failure, it was a blatant
documentation failure, and this is being rectified asap.
Cheers
_______________________________________________
List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/[email protected]
