Hi, I would like to highlight the fact the in large corporations, bumping DBI to new version is a major issue, as the module serve as a foundation for hundreds of applications, which must be retested on every change. As a result, large companies will bump DBI version every few years.
Also, large companies usually prefer to use vendor provided software. Red Hat 4 is bundled with DBI 1.40, and Red Hat 5 is bundled with 1.52. While this may not be the latest and greatest, this is the reality for many development projects. My 2 cents - If possible, DBD drivers should be compatible with older version as long as practically possible. This will make newer SQLite versions viable option for most projects. Yair > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Darren Duncan [mailto:dar...@darrenduncan.net] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:19 PM > To: General Discussion of SQLite Database; DBI Dev > Subject: Re: [sqlite] request to become co-maintainer of DBD::SQLite > > These are replies to posts on the sqlite-users list. However, if there > is going to be ongoing discussion I prefer it happen on the dbi-dev > list. Not that sqlite-users isn't very on topic itself, dbi-dev just > seems *more* on topic, I think. > > Clark Christensen wrote: > >> One of my first code changes will be to require DBI 1.607+ > > > > The current DBD-SQLite works fine under older versions of DBI. So > unless there's a compelling reason to do it, I would prefer you not make > what seems like an arbitrary requirement. > > I have 2 answers to that: > > 1. Sure, I can avoid changing the enforced dependency requirements for > now, leaving them as Matt left them. However, I will officially > deprecate support for the older versions and won't test on them. If > something works with the newer dependencies but not the older ones, it > will be up to those using or supporting the older dependencies to supply > fixes. > > 2. On one hand I could say, why not update your DBI when you're > updating DBD::SQLite, since even the DBI added lots of fixes one should > have. On the other hand, I can understand the reality that you may have > other legacy modules like drivers for other old databases that might > break with a DBI update. I say might, since on the other hand they > might not break. Still, I'll just go the deprecation angle for now. > > > Otherwise, it sounds like a good start. Matt must be really busy with > other work. > > > > I'll be happy to contribute where I can, but no C-fu here, either :-( > > Thank you. > > Ribeiro, Glauber wrote: > > My only suggestion at the moment, please use the amalgamation instead > of > individual files. This makes it much easier to upgrade when SQLite > > releases a new version. > > Okay. > > Jim Dodgen wrote: > > I'm for the amalgamation too. the rest of you ideas are great also. > > excelent idea to use Audrey Tangs nameing convention. > > > > I have been stuck back at 3.4 for various issues. > > > > I do Perl and C and offer some help. > > Okay and thank you. > > -- Darren Duncan > > > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
