On 8/17/05 5:39 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 03:58:54PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
>> I think it'll take years, and much actual production experience building
>> Perl 6 modules before the community learns what works and what doesn't for a
>> Perl 6 API (let alone implementation).  So trying to pin down a "properly
>> Perl-6-ish" API before Perl 6 is even through the language design process
>> strikes me as a Very Bad Idea.
> I remember the early years of Perl 5 development, when a new feature was
> added there'd be a period of over-zealous use followed by a hangover as
> all the problems and edge-cases became apparent.

Early years?  Just look at inside-out objects or MI with NEXT today!  Maybe
it never ends...for some people, anyway ;)

> With Perl 6 there's going to be some almighty hangovers :)

Understatement of the week :)

>> Anyway, it maybe worthwhile to have a DBI 1.99 first, and then maybe a 1.999
>> after that.  Basically, get one or two willing DBD authors who will help you
>> to test and then throw away the first two attempts at a Perl 6 DBI API.
>> Then at least you'll have some confidence when you commit to a DBI 2.0
>> API...which will be several years after Perl 6 is released, I hope.
> It'll be DBI 2 as DBI 1 still has a very long life ahead of it, but
> it'll be DBI 2.0.00xxx for quite a while :)

I just meant that there should be several, possibly very different, attempts
at DBI2 before the "real" DBI2 API is pinned down.  Making the experiments
have a 1.99x version helps to prevent people from thinking "this is DBI2!"
when it's really just the first or second prototype.

As for the actual 1.x DBI reaching 1.99, well, all I can say is to start
using that hundredths place! :)


Reply via email to