http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=7417
--- Comment #18 from Jared Camins-Esakov <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > Chris, > Thanks for your answer. > > > Which introduces no new dependencies > Koha already use a lot of dependencies. For a dependency as much important > part (OOP) I think it is not a good argument. > Furthermore this dependency will be used elsewhere :) > > > and importantly it's fast Class::Accessor does not employ an autoloader > Yes, I agree with you, fastness is one of the more important thing > > > thus it is much faster than you'd think. Its generated methods incur no > > special penalty over ones you'd write yourself. > Ok cool. > But it is just for accessor isn't it ? > I think we will quickly want to add relations between our classes (roles, > superclasses, etc.). > Before introducing new important classes (as Authority) in the Koha > namespace, I think it is important to start a global discussion. What do we > want for this new namespace and for this rewriting ? I think we want it to work, and provide much-needed features. > It would be great to have new classes written as we want from the beginning. > This would show what are the best practices to follow for futures classes. > To have a reflexion about how we want to rewrite the C4 modules seems to be > the first step. How we want to order our classes ? What Koha::Authority must > do ? We agree we don't want all C4::AuthoritiesMarc into Koha::Authority :) We have been talking about this for a year, and no one actually seems to have much of an opinion, other than the concepts set down in the namespace RFC. As for what Koha::Authority does, I propose the following list: 1. Retrieve an authority from the database. 2. Update/create an authority in the database. 3. Retrieve metadata about the authority. 4. Set metadata about the authority. 5. There is no five. > Mo[o][se] module[s] permits to create classes (with attr, method, etc.), > inheritance, etc. In fact it allows to do OO, very simply if an application > design has been made before. I don't think I see the benefit here. Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of Moose, but the speed issue, and the errors every time I try to load it, make me think that we're better off using Class::Accessor, which we already use elsewhere in Koha to great success. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
