On 2016-10-12 12:14 AM, Hartmaier Alexander wrote:
On 2016-10-06 21:15, Darren Duncan wrote:
On 2016-10-06 8:43 AM, Matt S Trout wrote:
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:17:49PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
That would be good, also in light with how that sentence continues:
"I suspect what we need to try and achieve is to get DBIC a bit more
decentralised - have it be a specific framework build atop a
more-like-Plack-for-DB-stuff - but you already know that's what I
have in mind and we both already know it's going to be a big-ass job
and we'll see if it pans out or not."
My own near term planned contributions to DBIC are precisely what
you said above. They would constitute a more-like-Plack-for-DB
ecosystem and in particular they should benefit DBIC by optimizing
it more for maintainability, so it is easier for others to add
features or make changes or otherwise just be more confident that it
works properly. If things go as I hope, this should start to land
in about a month.
Isn't DBI 'Plack-for-DB'?
In a manner of speaking DBI is indeed a Plack-for-DB, and came first.
However, DBI was also designed 20 years ago and has, for various reasons
including being a Mature project, solidified around particular design decisions
and API limitations that would have been chosen differently had it been invented
today. I know from various talk over the years that many people including Tim
Bunce agree with this view.
A reasonable analogy is that my Plack-for-DB is akin to Perl 6 where DBI is akin
to Perl 5.
I will refrain from discussing further details here, doing so is off-topic for
I only brought up my plans in this thread since I thought it would inform a
discussion about the future of DBIC and its ecosystem like SQL::Abstract for
people to know that I have a concrete vision for (aspects of) it and people
don't have to think no one has a vision.
-- Darren Duncan
Searchable Archive: http://firstname.lastname@example.org