There's now an initial patch available, so feel free to take a look at how much it touches areas waiting to be rewritten or cleaned. I don't feel it's very high impact, but then I'm the one hoping for this to be accepted. I'm ready to clean up any of the added code as necessary. It's currently styled in the way biblios are handled.

The impact on current codebase in numbers:

 C4/Biblio.pm                                       |  17 +
 C4/Items.pm                                        |   4 +-
 C4/Search.pm                                       |   8 +
 C4/XSLT.pm                                         |  33 +-
 acqui/z3950_search.pl                              |   2 +-
 admin/biblio_framework.pl                          |   5 +-
 catalogue/detail.pl                                |  10 +-
 cataloguing/addbiblio.pl                           |   2 +-
 cataloguing/addbooks.pl                            |   2 +-
 cataloguing/additem.pl                             |  11 +
 .../intranet-tmpl/prog/en/includes/cat-toolbar.inc |   4 +
 .../prog/en/modules/admin/biblio_framework.tt      |  22 +-
 .../en/modules/admin/preferences/cataloguing.pref  |   7 +
 .../prog/en/modules/catalogue/detail.tt            |  73 +-
 .../prog/en/modules/catalogue/moredetail.tt        |   2 +
 .../prog/en/modules/catalogue/results.tt           |  14 +
 .../opac-tmpl/bootstrap/en/modules/opac-detail.tt  |  28 +
 .../opac-tmpl/bootstrap/en/modules/opac-results.tt |  10 +
 .../bootstrap/en/xslt/MARC21slim2OPACResults.xsl   |  19 +-
 opac/opac-detail.pl                                |   7 +
 t/db_dependent/Koha/BiblioFrameworks.t             |   2 +

I think this is actually a pretty low number of changes, but then I've deliberately tried to keep the feature such that it doesn't affect current functionality.

MARC may die, and the underlying code can accommodate other formats too. But since there's no viable replacement for MARC holdings or a framework that would support those in Koha, I wouldn't consider MARC dead, nor do I see it dying anytime soon. It's tempting to try to define a more simple holdings format, but I believe that in real life it won't fulfil many of the requirements until it's evolved into a bad recreation of MARC holdings.

--Ere

Jonathan Druart kirjoitti 6.4.2018 klo 17.06:
I am not sure I understand all the ramifications of this RFC, what it implies (and I do not have time to dedicate to this right now), but I feel like Marcel. It sounds like these changes will touch lot of areas in Koha that are waiting to be rewritten/cleaned. We already have a lot of things waiting in our bug tracker, I would not start another big work now.

And...Must not MARC die?

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 at 04:26 Marcel de Rooy <m.de.r...@rijksmuseum.nl <mailto:m.de.r...@rijksmuseum.nl>> wrote:

    If I am reading about possible impact on holds functionality, I
    guess that we could better prioritize finishing REST API and moving
    to DBIx/Koha::Object.


    _______________________________________________
    Koha-devel mailing list
    Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org
    <mailto:Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org>
    http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
    website : http://www.koha-community.org/
    git : http://git.koha-community.org/
    bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/



_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org
http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
website : http://www.koha-community.org/
git : http://git.koha-community.org/
bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/


--
Ere Maijala
Kansalliskirjasto / The National Library of Finland
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org
http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
website : http://www.koha-community.org/
git : http://git.koha-community.org/
bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/

Reply via email to