Re: [Koha-devel] Koha Core anyone?

2018-04-19 Thread David Cook 
I’m excited by Julian’s work to move Koha into Mojolicious: 
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=20582. However, it 
makes me think we’re moving farther away from Srdjan’s multi-tenancy goal: 
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=15562. 

 

However, I was just thinking that maybe Koha Core is the answer there. 

 

For those who have the resources to do single-tenant apps, move full-steam 
ahead with Mojolicious. For those who want or need to have multi-tenant apps, 
maybe create/keep a simple CGI Koha based on Koha Core. I think it would be 
cool to have a multitenant Mojolicous, but considering how Ruby on Rails has a 
library called Apartment for handling multi-tenancy, I don’t know how well we’d 
fare trying to do our own implementation in Koha. 

 

What do people think?

 

Does multitenancy matter to anyone?

 

David Cook

Systems Librarian

Prosentient Systems

72/330 Wattle St

Ultimo, NSW 2007

Australia

 

Office: 02 9212 0899

Direct: 02 8005 0595

 

From: koha-devel-boun...@lists.koha-community.org 
[mailto:koha-devel-boun...@lists.koha-community.org] On Behalf Of David Cook
Sent: Friday, 20 April 2018 9:29 AM
To: 'Kyle Hall' <kyle.m.h...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Koha Devel' <koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org>; 'Benjamin Rokseth' 
<benjamin.roks...@deichman.no>
Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] Koha Core anyone?

 

In other Perl apps, I’ve used Moose to do before/after hooks: 
http://search.cpan.org/~ether/Moose-2.2010/lib/Moose/Manual/MethodModifiers.pod#Before_and_after_Modifiers

 

David Cook

Systems Librarian

Prosentient Systems

72/330 Wattle St

Ultimo, NSW 2007

Australia

 

Office: 02 9212 0899

Direct: 02 8005 0595

 

From: Kyle Hall [mailto:kyle.m.h...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, 20 April 2018 3:38 AM
To: David Cook <dc...@prosentient.com.au <mailto:dc...@prosentient.com.au> >
Cc: Benjamin Rokseth <benjamin.roks...@deichman.no 
<mailto:benjamin.roks...@deichman.no> >; Koha Devel 
<koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org 
<mailto:koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org> >
Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] Koha Core anyone?

 

I wonder if a Decorator pattern would be useful. An even simpler situation 
would be to enable a before and after hook for each subroutine in Koha via 
plugins.

 

Kyle




 
<https://secure2.convio.net/cffh/site/Donation2?df_id=1395_ID=4715_ID=2706639_TYPE=20&1395.donation=form1_src=CHORUS_subsrc=CHAADOEB>
 

 

http://www.kylehall.info
ByWater Solutions ( http://bywatersolutions.com )
Meadville Public Library ( http://www.meadvillelibrary.org )
Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org )

 

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:22 PM, David Cook <dc...@prosentient.com.au 
<mailto:dc...@prosentient.com.au> > wrote:

It seems to me that the Deichman modules would become stale pretty quickly.

Although, if there were a Koha Core which was fairly simple, maybe there
wouldn't be many breaking changes introduced over time. 

I have thought a bit about something like this before, although I was more
so interested in the OPAC. I thought it would be interesting to have a Koha
Core OPAC that worked out of the box, but have the core functionality
implemented with REST APIs so that people could embed Koha OPAC
functionality in any website they wanted. 

I think Katrin has already said it but the great thing about Koha is that it
is all things to all people. Thousands of libraries around the world rely on
being able to customize it via configuration alone. One way or another, we'd
have to preserve that even with a Koha Core model. So you might have
Deichman::Circulation, but we'd still need a Community::Circulation which
re-implements what we already have for the people who can't afford their own
Organisation::Circulation. 

I suppose what I'm saying is... I'm sure the community will welcome patches,
so long as you're able to preserve what's already there. And maybe that
means refactoring C4::Circulation into Core::Circulation and
Community::Circulation, and then Deichman can override Core::Circulation
going forward while the community maintains Core:: and Community::. I can't
imagine any objections to that.

I haven't looked at the code that Jonathan linked, but I'm guessing that you
have a separate user interface that invokes your Deichman::Circulation
module anyway, so it wouldn't affect Koha per se. 

In any case, I think it's an interesting idea. I think Koha is currently a
huge monolith and could benefit from further modularization that allows it
to be easily extended. Of course, that could always fragment contributions
to Koha... so vendors just provide their own flavours of Koha and don't
contribute back to the Core, but that already happens to a degree out of
necessity. Perhaps having a separate Core would make it easier to divide up
the "patches that can be upstreamed" versus the "patches that are just
relevant locally". 

Keen to hear

Re: [Koha-devel] Koha Core anyone?

2018-04-19 Thread David Cook 
In other Perl apps, I’ve used Moose to do before/after hooks: 
http://search.cpan.org/~ether/Moose-2.2010/lib/Moose/Manual/MethodModifiers.pod#Before_and_after_Modifiers

 

David Cook

Systems Librarian

Prosentient Systems

72/330 Wattle St

Ultimo, NSW 2007

Australia

 

Office: 02 9212 0899

Direct: 02 8005 0595

 

From: Kyle Hall [mailto:kyle.m.h...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, 20 April 2018 3:38 AM
To: David Cook <dc...@prosentient.com.au>
Cc: Benjamin Rokseth <benjamin.roks...@deichman.no>; Koha Devel 
<koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org>
Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] Koha Core anyone?

 

I wonder if a Decorator pattern would be useful. An even simpler situation 
would be to enable a before and after hook for each subroutine in Koha via 
plugins.

 

Kyle




 
<https://secure2.convio.net/cffh/site/Donation2?df_id=1395_ID=4715_ID=2706639_TYPE=20&1395.donation=form1_src=CHORUS_subsrc=CHAADOEB>
 

 

http://www.kylehall.info
ByWater Solutions ( http://bywatersolutions.com )
Meadville Public Library ( http://www.meadvillelibrary.org )
Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org )

 

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:22 PM, David Cook <dc...@prosentient.com.au 
<mailto:dc...@prosentient.com.au> > wrote:

It seems to me that the Deichman modules would become stale pretty quickly.

Although, if there were a Koha Core which was fairly simple, maybe there
wouldn't be many breaking changes introduced over time. 

I have thought a bit about something like this before, although I was more
so interested in the OPAC. I thought it would be interesting to have a Koha
Core OPAC that worked out of the box, but have the core functionality
implemented with REST APIs so that people could embed Koha OPAC
functionality in any website they wanted. 

I think Katrin has already said it but the great thing about Koha is that it
is all things to all people. Thousands of libraries around the world rely on
being able to customize it via configuration alone. One way or another, we'd
have to preserve that even with a Koha Core model. So you might have
Deichman::Circulation, but we'd still need a Community::Circulation which
re-implements what we already have for the people who can't afford their own
Organisation::Circulation. 

I suppose what I'm saying is... I'm sure the community will welcome patches,
so long as you're able to preserve what's already there. And maybe that
means refactoring C4::Circulation into Core::Circulation and
Community::Circulation, and then Deichman can override Core::Circulation
going forward while the community maintains Core:: and Community::. I can't
imagine any objections to that.

I haven't looked at the code that Jonathan linked, but I'm guessing that you
have a separate user interface that invokes your Deichman::Circulation
module anyway, so it wouldn't affect Koha per se. 

In any case, I think it's an interesting idea. I think Koha is currently a
huge monolith and could benefit from further modularization that allows it
to be easily extended. Of course, that could always fragment contributions
to Koha... so vendors just provide their own flavours of Koha and don't
contribute back to the Core, but that already happens to a degree out of
necessity. Perhaps having a separate Core would make it easier to divide up
the "patches that can be upstreamed" versus the "patches that are just
relevant locally". 

Keen to hear more on this one.

David Cook
Systems Librarian
Prosentient Systems
72/330 Wattle St
Ultimo, NSW 2007
Australia

Office: 02 9212 0899
Direct: 02 8005 0595



-Original Message-
From: koha-devel-boun...@lists.koha-community.org 
<mailto:koha-devel-boun...@lists.koha-community.org> 
[mailto:koha-devel-boun...@lists.koha-community.org 
<mailto:koha-devel-boun...@lists.koha-community.org> ] On Behalf Of Benjamin
Rokseth
Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2018 1:04 AM
To: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org 
<mailto:koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org> 
Subject: [Koha-devel] Koha Core anyone?

Community hackers,

on hackfest I got introvertly enthusiastic about the concept of a Koha Core,
and about time I shared some thoughts.

Background: Deichman (Oslo Public Library) is heavily leaning on bleeding
edge Koha development (REST, Objects, Auth, NCIP and such) and, like at
least some others, maintain a lot of local patches to tweak Koha into our
users needs. Some are probably interesting to Community, others not. Now to
keep everything in sync with Community would be amazing, but not likely to
happen anytime soon.

Great work has been done on refactoring Koha (new namespace, Koha Objects
and REST api, etc.), but we'd like to suggest one more - a Koha core.
The idea is simple: borrow from object oriented languages, java, or actually
more ruby, since we're dealing with a dynamic language, use class/module
inheritance and method overrides.
Perl has the "use parent" concept which simplifies inheritan

Re: [Koha-devel] Koha Core anyone?

2018-04-19 Thread Kyle Hall 
I wonder if a Decorator pattern would be useful. An even simpler situation
would be to enable a before and after hook for each subroutine in Koha via
plugins.

Kyle



http://www.kylehall.info
ByWater Solutions ( http://bywatersolutions.com )
Meadville Public Library ( http://www.meadvillelibrary.org )
Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org )

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:22 PM, David Cook 
wrote:

> It seems to me that the Deichman modules would become stale pretty quickly.
>
> Although, if there were a Koha Core which was fairly simple, maybe there
> wouldn't be many breaking changes introduced over time.
>
> I have thought a bit about something like this before, although I was more
> so interested in the OPAC. I thought it would be interesting to have a Koha
> Core OPAC that worked out of the box, but have the core functionality
> implemented with REST APIs so that people could embed Koha OPAC
> functionality in any website they wanted.
>
> I think Katrin has already said it but the great thing about Koha is that
> it
> is all things to all people. Thousands of libraries around the world rely
> on
> being able to customize it via configuration alone. One way or another,
> we'd
> have to preserve that even with a Koha Core model. So you might have
> Deichman::Circulation, but we'd still need a Community::Circulation which
> re-implements what we already have for the people who can't afford their
> own
> Organisation::Circulation.
>
> I suppose what I'm saying is... I'm sure the community will welcome
> patches,
> so long as you're able to preserve what's already there. And maybe that
> means refactoring C4::Circulation into Core::Circulation and
> Community::Circulation, and then Deichman can override Core::Circulation
> going forward while the community maintains Core:: and Community::. I can't
> imagine any objections to that.
>
> I haven't looked at the code that Jonathan linked, but I'm guessing that
> you
> have a separate user interface that invokes your Deichman::Circulation
> module anyway, so it wouldn't affect Koha per se.
>
> In any case, I think it's an interesting idea. I think Koha is currently a
> huge monolith and could benefit from further modularization that allows it
> to be easily extended. Of course, that could always fragment contributions
> to Koha... so vendors just provide their own flavours of Koha and don't
> contribute back to the Core, but that already happens to a degree out of
> necessity. Perhaps having a separate Core would make it easier to divide up
> the "patches that can be upstreamed" versus the "patches that are just
> relevant locally".
>
> Keen to hear more on this one.
>
> David Cook
> Systems Librarian
> Prosentient Systems
> 72/330 Wattle St
> Ultimo, NSW 2007
> Australia
>
> Office: 02 9212 0899
> Direct: 02 8005 0595
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: koha-devel-boun...@lists.koha-community.org
> [mailto:koha-devel-boun...@lists.koha-community.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin
> Rokseth
> Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2018 1:04 AM
> To: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org
> Subject: [Koha-devel] Koha Core anyone?
>
> Community hackers,
>
> on hackfest I got introvertly enthusiastic about the concept of a Koha
> Core,
> and about time I shared some thoughts.
>
> Background: Deichman (Oslo Public Library) is heavily leaning on bleeding
> edge Koha development (REST, Objects, Auth, NCIP and such) and, like at
> least some others, maintain a lot of local patches to tweak Koha into our
> users needs. Some are probably interesting to Community, others not. Now to
> keep everything in sync with Community would be amazing, but not likely to
> happen anytime soon.
>
> Great work has been done on refactoring Koha (new namespace, Koha Objects
> and REST api, etc.), but we'd like to suggest one more - a Koha core.
> The idea is simple: borrow from object oriented languages, java, or
> actually
> more ruby, since we're dealing with a dynamic language, use class/module
> inheritance and method overrides.
> Perl has the "use parent" concept which simplifies inheritance/subclassing
> and allows for nested overrides.
>
> As an example we refactored the current circulation in Koha, since this for
> us is the core functionality that we depend on and need to hook our local
> quirks on top of.
> An attempt to illustrate:
>
> ++
> | Core::Main |
> +--^-+
>|
> +--++
> | Core::Prefs   |
> | Core::Exceptions  |+---+
> | Core::Circulation <-+--+---| Deichman::Circulation |
> | ...   | |  |   +---^---+
> +---+ |  |   |
>   |  |   |
>+--+--+   +--+
>|

Re: [Koha-devel] Koha Core anyone?

2018-04-10 Thread David Cook 
It seems to me that the Deichman modules would become stale pretty quickly.

Although, if there were a Koha Core which was fairly simple, maybe there
wouldn't be many breaking changes introduced over time. 

I have thought a bit about something like this before, although I was more
so interested in the OPAC. I thought it would be interesting to have a Koha
Core OPAC that worked out of the box, but have the core functionality
implemented with REST APIs so that people could embed Koha OPAC
functionality in any website they wanted. 

I think Katrin has already said it but the great thing about Koha is that it
is all things to all people. Thousands of libraries around the world rely on
being able to customize it via configuration alone. One way or another, we'd
have to preserve that even with a Koha Core model. So you might have
Deichman::Circulation, but we'd still need a Community::Circulation which
re-implements what we already have for the people who can't afford their own
Organisation::Circulation. 

I suppose what I'm saying is... I'm sure the community will welcome patches,
so long as you're able to preserve what's already there. And maybe that
means refactoring C4::Circulation into Core::Circulation and
Community::Circulation, and then Deichman can override Core::Circulation
going forward while the community maintains Core:: and Community::. I can't
imagine any objections to that.

I haven't looked at the code that Jonathan linked, but I'm guessing that you
have a separate user interface that invokes your Deichman::Circulation
module anyway, so it wouldn't affect Koha per se. 

In any case, I think it's an interesting idea. I think Koha is currently a
huge monolith and could benefit from further modularization that allows it
to be easily extended. Of course, that could always fragment contributions
to Koha... so vendors just provide their own flavours of Koha and don't
contribute back to the Core, but that already happens to a degree out of
necessity. Perhaps having a separate Core would make it easier to divide up
the "patches that can be upstreamed" versus the "patches that are just
relevant locally". 

Keen to hear more on this one.

David Cook
Systems Librarian
Prosentient Systems
72/330 Wattle St
Ultimo, NSW 2007
Australia

Office: 02 9212 0899
Direct: 02 8005 0595


-Original Message-
From: koha-devel-boun...@lists.koha-community.org
[mailto:koha-devel-boun...@lists.koha-community.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin
Rokseth
Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2018 1:04 AM
To: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org
Subject: [Koha-devel] Koha Core anyone?

Community hackers,

on hackfest I got introvertly enthusiastic about the concept of a Koha Core,
and about time I shared some thoughts.

Background: Deichman (Oslo Public Library) is heavily leaning on bleeding
edge Koha development (REST, Objects, Auth, NCIP and such) and, like at
least some others, maintain a lot of local patches to tweak Koha into our
users needs. Some are probably interesting to Community, others not. Now to
keep everything in sync with Community would be amazing, but not likely to
happen anytime soon.

Great work has been done on refactoring Koha (new namespace, Koha Objects
and REST api, etc.), but we'd like to suggest one more - a Koha core.
The idea is simple: borrow from object oriented languages, java, or actually
more ruby, since we're dealing with a dynamic language, use class/module
inheritance and method overrides.
Perl has the "use parent" concept which simplifies inheritance/subclassing
and allows for nested overrides.

As an example we refactored the current circulation in Koha, since this for
us is the core functionality that we depend on and need to hook our local
quirks on top of.
An attempt to illustrate:

++
| Core::Main |
+--^-+
   |
+--++
| Core::Prefs   |
| Core::Exceptions  |+---+
| Core::Circulation <-+--+---| Deichman::Circulation |
| ...   | |  |   +---^---+
+---+ |  |   |
  |  |   |
   +--+--+   +--+
   | Core::Circulation::SIP  |   |Deichman::Circulation::SIP|
   ++
 |use parent qw(
 |  Deichman::Circulation
  +--+  Core::Circulation::SIP
  | Core::Circulation::UI|)
  +--+
 |
 ~

* Core::Main is simply an empty class that act as a parent for any child,
including Core::Circulation.
* Core::Circulation has a constructor that takes koha objects item and
library, optionally patron
  and sysprefs overrides. It can have accessors such as checkout, messages
and other things needed for
  intra, SIP or

Re: [Koha-devel] Koha Core anyone? (Benjamin Rokseth)

2018-04-10 Thread Benjamin Rokseth 
Hi, and thanks for quick feedback folks.

Good catch, Jonathan, we recently moved to gitlab since they integrate devops 
and CI build tools. The branch circ_rewrite_master is rebased against master, 
but havent tested properly yet, so its very WIP but you'll get the general idea.


Julian,​

> I have some concerns about this approach. You are saying that local

> adaptations are reusable for others, but I don't see how. Deichman::*
> will inevitably end up being highly specific. I could probably
> copy/paste some code, but I think we will all have to write our own
> MyLibrary::* stuff.

Your concern is probably sound, since it is easier to add all local adaptations 
to a local namespace (Deichman::*) and be done with it. What I'd suggest though 
is that modules are kept as atomic as possible so that anything can possibly be 
overridden. Its kind of the opposite of todays practise where sysprefs are 
scattered all over the code to adjust for local variations, at least from what 
I've seen in the C4::Circulation. I think it would make sense to allow for a 
Core Circulation that never touch sysprefs, while at the same time having a 
"default" or "full-blown" implementation that can do exactly what 
C4::Circulation does today.

> I'd prefer to extend the capabilities of plugins. This way we could
> combine small generic plugins to answer specific needs.

Actually, I didnt realize plugins was more than tools to extend reports, kind 
of a stepwise db tooling. At least the examples I saw was just CGI templates 
that must be aactively run to modify database. And they seemed based on CGI 
templating which doesnt help us much. In any case, to plug into something 
central, such as Circulation, the circulation modules would need to be 
rewritten.

> But you also say that you reimplemented all the circulation stuff, and
> that it was not complicated, so I'm curious :) Show us the code!


WIP for sure, but as Jonathan found out, here is a single commit on top of 
master

https://gitlab.deichman.no/digibib/Koha/commits/circ_rewrite_master

I see now we use a local caching trick with method attributes (PureFunctions) 
that is not included, so I will have to remove that or it will not work at 
present. But if theres some interest, I will open a bug and commit so people 
can test it. I will try to commit at least to make circulation work as in a 
standard installation.


Benjamin


Fra: Brendan Gallagher <i...@bywatersolutions.com>
Sendt: 10. april 2018 21:34
Til: Jonathan Druart
Kopi: Benjamin Rokseth; koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org
Emne: Re: [Koha-devel] Koha Core anyone?

Very excited by this idea.  Lot's to think about.  We're on board with most of 
it and are ready to help.

Cheers,
Brendan

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Jonathan Druart 
<jonathan.dru...@bugs.koha-community.org<mailto:jonathan.dru...@bugs.koha-community.org>>
 wrote:
Ha, found it!
https://gitlab.deichman.no/digibib/Koha/commits/circ_rewrite_master
I was looking at the digibib github repo!


On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 at 13:28 Jonathan Druart 
<jonathan.dru...@bugs.koha-community.org<mailto:jonathan.dru...@bugs.koha-community.org>>
 wrote:
Hi Benjamin,

Where is the code of the "working example"?

Cheers,
Jonathan

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 at 12:04 Benjamin Rokseth 
<benjamin.roks...@deichman.no<mailto:benjamin.roks...@deichman.no>> wrote:
Community hackers,

on hackfest I got introvertly enthusiastic about the concept of a Koha Core, and
about time I shared some thoughts.

Background: Deichman (Oslo Public Library) is heavily leaning on bleeding edge 
Koha
development (REST, Objects, Auth, NCIP and such) and, like at least some 
others, maintain
a lot of local patches to tweak Koha into our users needs. Some are probably 
interesting to
Community, others not. Now to keep everything in sync with Community would be 
amazing,
but not likely to happen anytime soon.

Great work has been done on refactoring Koha (new namespace, Koha Objects and 
REST api, etc.),
but we'd like to suggest one more - a Koha core.
The idea is simple: borrow from object oriented languages, java, or actually 
more ruby, since
we're dealing with a dynamic language, use class/module inheritance and method 
overrides.
Perl has the "use parent" concept which simplifies inheritance/subclassing and 
allows for
nested overrides.

As an example we refactored the current circulation in Koha, since this for us 
is the core
functionality that we depend on and need to hook our local quirks on top of.
An attempt to illustrate:

++
| Core::Main |
+--^-+
   |
+--++
| Core::Prefs   |
| Core::Except

Re: [Koha-devel] Koha Core anyone?

2018-04-10 Thread Katrin Fischer 

Hi all,

I am a bit worried that we will end up building a system for power 
users, that have the option to extend Koha with local development to 
make it fit. Let's also keep the users in mind, that don't have that 
option and need a system that is flexible by configuration.


There is also the question what will make it into Core and how to handle 
changes that might effect dependent modules. How much of the local 
adaptations will be submitted to Koha proper and who will maintain them? 
We have quite a lot of ongoing projects at the moment, but finding the 
resources to keep them moving has been proven hard.


Katrin


On 10.04.2018 18:28, Julian Maurice wrote:

Hi Benjamin,

I have some concerns about this approach. You are saying that local
adaptations are reusable for others, but I don't see how. Deichman::*
will inevitably end up being highly specific. I could probably
copy/paste some code, but I think we will all have to write our own
MyLibrary::* stuff.

I'd prefer to extend the capabilities of plugins. This way we could
combine small generic plugins to answer specific needs.

But you also say that you reimplemented all the circulation stuff, and
that it was not complicated, so I'm curious :) Show us the code!

Le 10/04/2018 à 17:04, Benjamin Rokseth a écrit :

Community hackers,

on hackfest I got introvertly enthusiastic about the concept of a Koha Core, and
about time I shared some thoughts.

Background: Deichman (Oslo Public Library) is heavily leaning on bleeding edge 
Koha
development (REST, Objects, Auth, NCIP and such) and, like at least some 
others, maintain
a lot of local patches to tweak Koha into our users needs. Some are probably 
interesting to
Community, others not. Now to keep everything in sync with Community would be 
amazing,
but not likely to happen anytime soon.

Great work has been done on refactoring Koha (new namespace, Koha Objects and 
REST api, etc.),
but we'd like to suggest one more - a Koha core.
The idea is simple: borrow from object oriented languages, java, or actually 
more ruby, since
we're dealing with a dynamic language, use class/module inheritance and method 
overrides.
Perl has the "use parent" concept which simplifies inheritance/subclassing and 
allows for
nested overrides.

As an example we refactored the current circulation in Koha, since this for us 
is the core
functionality that we depend on and need to hook our local quirks on top of.
An attempt to illustrate:

++
| Core::Main |
+--^-+
|
+--++
| Core::Prefs   |
| Core::Exceptions  |+---+
| Core::Circulation <-+--+---| Deichman::Circulation |
| ...   | |  |   +---^---+
+---+ |  |   |
   |  |   |
+--+--+   +--+
| Core::Circulation::SIP  |   |Deichman::Circulation::SIP|
++
  |use parent qw(
  |  Deichman::Circulation
   +--+  Core::Circulation::SIP
   | Core::Circulation::UI|)
   +--+
  |
  ~

* Core::Main is simply an empty class that act as a parent for any child, 
including Core::Circulation.
* Core::Circulation has a constructor that takes koha objects item and library, 
optionally patron
   and sysprefs overrides. It can have accessors such as checkout, messages and 
other things needed for
   intra, SIP or whatever. It has methods Checkin, Checkout and Renew, amongst 
others.
* then: Deichman::Circulation::SIP in this example is a local override that 
inherits from parents
   Deichman::Circulation and Core::Circulation::SIP

now the beauty of this is that Deichman::Circulation::SIP can override anything 
(even the constructor)
without touching any of the core code, and perl will traverse the inheritance 
tree until it finds the
first matching constructor and method.

Pros:
   - simpler, more readable and more reusable code.
   - local adaptations are easy to hande, and reusable for others
   - the slight overhead of using blessed objects and inheritance is easily 
gained by the fact that any
 operation will only need fetching Koha objects once (item,library,patron 
etc) instead of refetching
 them numerous times spread across methods calls and loops
   - way less db calls if done right, faster Koha
   - no more C4::Context, hopefully
   - systempreferences can be dramatically reduced, since most of them are 
about overrides anyways
   - can be done incrementally, replacing one functionality at a time

cons:
   - refactoring doesnt make end users happy (but needs to be done in any case)
   - a bit of work to keep templates happy
   - requires a basic

Re: [Koha-devel] Koha Core anyone?

2018-04-10 Thread Brendan Gallagher 
Very excited by this idea.  Lot's to think about.  We're on board with most
of it and are ready to help.

Cheers,
Brendan

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Jonathan Druart <
jonathan.dru...@bugs.koha-community.org> wrote:

> Ha, found it!
> https://gitlab.deichman.no/digibib/Koha/commits/circ_rewrite_master
> I was looking at the digibib github repo!
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 at 13:28 Jonathan Druart  community.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Benjamin,
>>
>> Where is the code of the "working example"?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jonathan
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 at 12:04 Benjamin Rokseth <
>> benjamin.roks...@deichman.no> wrote:
>>
>>> Community hackers,
>>>
>>> on hackfest I got introvertly enthusiastic about the concept of a Koha
>>> Core, and
>>> about time I shared some thoughts.
>>>
>>> Background: Deichman (Oslo Public Library) is heavily leaning on
>>> bleeding edge Koha
>>> development (REST, Objects, Auth, NCIP and such) and, like at least some
>>> others, maintain
>>> a lot of local patches to tweak Koha into our users needs. Some are
>>> probably interesting to
>>> Community, others not. Now to keep everything in sync with Community
>>> would be amazing,
>>> but not likely to happen anytime soon.
>>>
>>> Great work has been done on refactoring Koha (new namespace, Koha
>>> Objects and REST api, etc.),
>>> but we'd like to suggest one more - a Koha core.
>>> The idea is simple: borrow from object oriented languages, java, or
>>> actually more ruby, since
>>> we're dealing with a dynamic language, use class/module inheritance and
>>> method overrides.
>>> Perl has the "use parent" concept which simplifies
>>> inheritance/subclassing and allows for
>>> nested overrides.
>>>
>>> As an example we refactored the current circulation in Koha, since this
>>> for us is the core
>>> functionality that we depend on and need to hook our local quirks on top
>>> of.
>>> An attempt to illustrate:
>>>
>>> ++
>>> | Core::Main |
>>> +--^-+
>>>|
>>> +--++
>>> | Core::Prefs   |
>>> | Core::Exceptions  |+---+
>>> | Core::Circulation <-+--+---| Deichman::Circulation |
>>> | ...   | |  |   +---^---+
>>> +---+ |  |   |
>>>   |  |   |
>>>+--+--+   +--+
>>>| Core::Circulation::SIP  |   |Deichman::Circulation::SIP|
>>>++
>>>  |use parent qw(
>>>  |  Deichman::Circulation
>>>   +--+  Core::Circulation::SIP
>>>   | Core::Circulation::UI|)
>>>   +--+
>>>  |
>>>  ~
>>>
>>> * Core::Main is simply an empty class that act as a parent for any
>>> child, including Core::Circulation.
>>> * Core::Circulation has a constructor that takes koha objects item and
>>> library, optionally patron
>>>   and sysprefs overrides. It can have accessors such as checkout,
>>> messages and other things needed for
>>>   intra, SIP or whatever. It has methods Checkin, Checkout and Renew,
>>> amongst others.
>>> * then: Deichman::Circulation::SIP in this example is a local override
>>> that inherits from parents
>>>   Deichman::Circulation and Core::Circulation::SIP
>>>
>>> now the beauty of this is that Deichman::Circulation::SIP can override
>>> anything (even the constructor)
>>> without touching any of the core code, and perl will traverse the
>>> inheritance tree until it finds the
>>> first matching constructor and method.
>>>
>>> Pros:
>>>   - simpler, more readable and more reusable code.
>>>   - local adaptations are easy to hande, and reusable for others
>>>   - the slight overhead of using blessed objects and inheritance is
>>> easily gained by the fact that any
>>> operation will only need fetching Koha objects once
>>> (item,library,patron etc) instead of refetching
>>> them numerous times spread across methods calls and loops
>>>   - way less db calls if done right, faster Koha
>>>   - no more C4::Context, hopefully
>>>   - systempreferences can be dramatically reduced, since most of them
>>> are about overrides anyways
>>>   - can be done incrementally, replacing one functionality at a time
>>>
>>> cons:
>>>   - refactoring doesnt make end users happy (but needs to be done in any
>>> case)
>>>   - a bit of work to keep templates happy
>>>   - requires a basic understanding of oop
>>>
>>> So to sum up: We already have a working example for circulation (though
>>> not in production)
>>> that we can demonstrate. It reimplements basically the entire
>>> C4::Circulation, just some small
>>> parts missing. So it can be done.
>>>
>>> But we'd love to hear second opinions from the community! We

Re: [Koha-devel] Koha Core anyone?

2018-04-10 Thread Jonathan Druart 
Ha, found it!
https://gitlab.deichman.no/digibib/Koha/commits/circ_rewrite_master
I was looking at the digibib github repo!

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 at 13:28 Jonathan Druart <
jonathan.dru...@bugs.koha-community.org> wrote:

> Hi Benjamin,
>
> Where is the code of the "working example"?
>
> Cheers,
> Jonathan
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 at 12:04 Benjamin Rokseth <
> benjamin.roks...@deichman.no> wrote:
>
>> Community hackers,
>>
>> on hackfest I got introvertly enthusiastic about the concept of a Koha
>> Core, and
>> about time I shared some thoughts.
>>
>> Background: Deichman (Oslo Public Library) is heavily leaning on bleeding
>> edge Koha
>> development (REST, Objects, Auth, NCIP and such) and, like at least some
>> others, maintain
>> a lot of local patches to tweak Koha into our users needs. Some are
>> probably interesting to
>> Community, others not. Now to keep everything in sync with Community
>> would be amazing,
>> but not likely to happen anytime soon.
>>
>> Great work has been done on refactoring Koha (new namespace, Koha Objects
>> and REST api, etc.),
>> but we'd like to suggest one more - a Koha core.
>> The idea is simple: borrow from object oriented languages, java, or
>> actually more ruby, since
>> we're dealing with a dynamic language, use class/module inheritance and
>> method overrides.
>> Perl has the "use parent" concept which simplifies
>> inheritance/subclassing and allows for
>> nested overrides.
>>
>> As an example we refactored the current circulation in Koha, since this
>> for us is the core
>> functionality that we depend on and need to hook our local quirks on top
>> of.
>> An attempt to illustrate:
>>
>> ++
>> | Core::Main |
>> +--^-+
>>|
>> +--++
>> | Core::Prefs   |
>> | Core::Exceptions  |+---+
>> | Core::Circulation <-+--+---| Deichman::Circulation |
>> | ...   | |  |   +---^---+
>> +---+ |  |   |
>>   |  |   |
>>+--+--+   +--+
>>| Core::Circulation::SIP  |   |Deichman::Circulation::SIP|
>>++
>>  |use parent qw(
>>  |  Deichman::Circulation
>>   +--+  Core::Circulation::SIP
>>   | Core::Circulation::UI|)
>>   +--+
>>  |
>>  ~
>>
>> * Core::Main is simply an empty class that act as a parent for any child,
>> including Core::Circulation.
>> * Core::Circulation has a constructor that takes koha objects item and
>> library, optionally patron
>>   and sysprefs overrides. It can have accessors such as checkout,
>> messages and other things needed for
>>   intra, SIP or whatever. It has methods Checkin, Checkout and Renew,
>> amongst others.
>> * then: Deichman::Circulation::SIP in this example is a local override
>> that inherits from parents
>>   Deichman::Circulation and Core::Circulation::SIP
>>
>> now the beauty of this is that Deichman::Circulation::SIP can override
>> anything (even the constructor)
>> without touching any of the core code, and perl will traverse the
>> inheritance tree until it finds the
>> first matching constructor and method.
>>
>> Pros:
>>   - simpler, more readable and more reusable code.
>>   - local adaptations are easy to hande, and reusable for others
>>   - the slight overhead of using blessed objects and inheritance is
>> easily gained by the fact that any
>> operation will only need fetching Koha objects once
>> (item,library,patron etc) instead of refetching
>> them numerous times spread across methods calls and loops
>>   - way less db calls if done right, faster Koha
>>   - no more C4::Context, hopefully
>>   - systempreferences can be dramatically reduced, since most of them are
>> about overrides anyways
>>   - can be done incrementally, replacing one functionality at a time
>>
>> cons:
>>   - refactoring doesnt make end users happy (but needs to be done in any
>> case)
>>   - a bit of work to keep templates happy
>>   - requires a basic understanding of oop
>>
>> So to sum up: We already have a working example for circulation (though
>> not in production)
>> that we can demonstrate. It reimplements basically the entire
>> C4::Circulation, just some small
>> parts missing. So it can be done.
>>
>> But we'd love to hear second opinions from the community! We know the
>> fear for breaking changes, but
>> its neither scary or complicated to implement!
>>
>> Benjamin Rokseth
>> Oslo Public Library
>> ___
>> Koha-devel mailing list
>> Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org
>> http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
>> website :

Re: [Koha-devel] Koha Core anyone?

2018-04-10 Thread Julian Maurice 
Hi Benjamin,

I have some concerns about this approach. You are saying that local
adaptations are reusable for others, but I don't see how. Deichman::*
will inevitably end up being highly specific. I could probably
copy/paste some code, but I think we will all have to write our own
MyLibrary::* stuff.

I'd prefer to extend the capabilities of plugins. This way we could
combine small generic plugins to answer specific needs.

But you also say that you reimplemented all the circulation stuff, and
that it was not complicated, so I'm curious :) Show us the code!

Le 10/04/2018 à 17:04, Benjamin Rokseth a écrit :
> Community hackers,
> 
> on hackfest I got introvertly enthusiastic about the concept of a Koha Core, 
> and
> about time I shared some thoughts.
> 
> Background: Deichman (Oslo Public Library) is heavily leaning on bleeding 
> edge Koha
> development (REST, Objects, Auth, NCIP and such) and, like at least some 
> others, maintain
> a lot of local patches to tweak Koha into our users needs. Some are probably 
> interesting to
> Community, others not. Now to keep everything in sync with Community would be 
> amazing,
> but not likely to happen anytime soon.
> 
> Great work has been done on refactoring Koha (new namespace, Koha Objects and 
> REST api, etc.),
> but we'd like to suggest one more - a Koha core.
> The idea is simple: borrow from object oriented languages, java, or actually 
> more ruby, since
> we're dealing with a dynamic language, use class/module inheritance and 
> method overrides.
> Perl has the "use parent" concept which simplifies inheritance/subclassing 
> and allows for
> nested overrides.
> 
> As an example we refactored the current circulation in Koha, since this for 
> us is the core
> functionality that we depend on and need to hook our local quirks on top of.
> An attempt to illustrate:
> 
> ++
> | Core::Main |
> +--^-+
>|
> +--++
> | Core::Prefs   |
> | Core::Exceptions  |+---+
> | Core::Circulation <-+--+---| Deichman::Circulation |
> | ...   | |  |   +---^---+
> +---+ |  |   |
>   |  |   |
>+--+--+   +--+
>| Core::Circulation::SIP  |   |Deichman::Circulation::SIP|
>++
>  |use parent qw(
>  |  Deichman::Circulation
>   +--+  Core::Circulation::SIP
>   | Core::Circulation::UI|)
>   +--+
>  |
>  ~
> 
> * Core::Main is simply an empty class that act as a parent for any child, 
> including Core::Circulation.
> * Core::Circulation has a constructor that takes koha objects item and 
> library, optionally patron
>   and sysprefs overrides. It can have accessors such as checkout, messages 
> and other things needed for
>   intra, SIP or whatever. It has methods Checkin, Checkout and Renew, amongst 
> others.
> * then: Deichman::Circulation::SIP in this example is a local override that 
> inherits from parents
>   Deichman::Circulation and Core::Circulation::SIP
> 
> now the beauty of this is that Deichman::Circulation::SIP can override 
> anything (even the constructor)
> without touching any of the core code, and perl will traverse the inheritance 
> tree until it finds the
> first matching constructor and method.
> 
> Pros:
>   - simpler, more readable and more reusable code.
>   - local adaptations are easy to hande, and reusable for others
>   - the slight overhead of using blessed objects and inheritance is easily 
> gained by the fact that any
> operation will only need fetching Koha objects once (item,library,patron 
> etc) instead of refetching
> them numerous times spread across methods calls and loops
>   - way less db calls if done right, faster Koha
>   - no more C4::Context, hopefully
>   - systempreferences can be dramatically reduced, since most of them are 
> about overrides anyways
>   - can be done incrementally, replacing one functionality at a time
> 
> cons:
>   - refactoring doesnt make end users happy (but needs to be done in any case)
>   - a bit of work to keep templates happy
>   - requires a basic understanding of oop
> 
> So to sum up: We already have a working example for circulation (though not 
> in production)
> that we can demonstrate. It reimplements basically the entire 
> C4::Circulation, just some small
> parts missing. So it can be done.
> 
> But we'd love to hear second opinions from the community! We know the fear 
> for breaking changes, but
> its neither scary or complicated to implement!
> 
> Benjamin Rokseth
> Oslo Public Library
> ___
> Koha-devel

Re: [Koha-devel] Koha Core anyone?

2018-04-10 Thread Jonathan Druart 
Hi Benjamin,

Where is the code of the "working example"?

Cheers,
Jonathan

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 at 12:04 Benjamin Rokseth 
wrote:

> Community hackers,
>
> on hackfest I got introvertly enthusiastic about the concept of a Koha
> Core, and
> about time I shared some thoughts.
>
> Background: Deichman (Oslo Public Library) is heavily leaning on bleeding
> edge Koha
> development (REST, Objects, Auth, NCIP and such) and, like at least some
> others, maintain
> a lot of local patches to tweak Koha into our users needs. Some are
> probably interesting to
> Community, others not. Now to keep everything in sync with Community would
> be amazing,
> but not likely to happen anytime soon.
>
> Great work has been done on refactoring Koha (new namespace, Koha Objects
> and REST api, etc.),
> but we'd like to suggest one more - a Koha core.
> The idea is simple: borrow from object oriented languages, java, or
> actually more ruby, since
> we're dealing with a dynamic language, use class/module inheritance and
> method overrides.
> Perl has the "use parent" concept which simplifies inheritance/subclassing
> and allows for
> nested overrides.
>
> As an example we refactored the current circulation in Koha, since this
> for us is the core
> functionality that we depend on and need to hook our local quirks on top
> of.
> An attempt to illustrate:
>
> ++
> | Core::Main |
> +--^-+
>|
> +--++
> | Core::Prefs   |
> | Core::Exceptions  |+---+
> | Core::Circulation <-+--+---| Deichman::Circulation |
> | ...   | |  |   +---^---+
> +---+ |  |   |
>   |  |   |
>+--+--+   +--+
>| Core::Circulation::SIP  |   |Deichman::Circulation::SIP|
>++
>  |use parent qw(
>  |  Deichman::Circulation
>   +--+  Core::Circulation::SIP
>   | Core::Circulation::UI|)
>   +--+
>  |
>  ~
>
> * Core::Main is simply an empty class that act as a parent for any child,
> including Core::Circulation.
> * Core::Circulation has a constructor that takes koha objects item and
> library, optionally patron
>   and sysprefs overrides. It can have accessors such as checkout, messages
> and other things needed for
>   intra, SIP or whatever. It has methods Checkin, Checkout and Renew,
> amongst others.
> * then: Deichman::Circulation::SIP in this example is a local override
> that inherits from parents
>   Deichman::Circulation and Core::Circulation::SIP
>
> now the beauty of this is that Deichman::Circulation::SIP can override
> anything (even the constructor)
> without touching any of the core code, and perl will traverse the
> inheritance tree until it finds the
> first matching constructor and method.
>
> Pros:
>   - simpler, more readable and more reusable code.
>   - local adaptations are easy to hande, and reusable for others
>   - the slight overhead of using blessed objects and inheritance is easily
> gained by the fact that any
> operation will only need fetching Koha objects once
> (item,library,patron etc) instead of refetching
> them numerous times spread across methods calls and loops
>   - way less db calls if done right, faster Koha
>   - no more C4::Context, hopefully
>   - systempreferences can be dramatically reduced, since most of them are
> about overrides anyways
>   - can be done incrementally, replacing one functionality at a time
>
> cons:
>   - refactoring doesnt make end users happy (but needs to be done in any
> case)
>   - a bit of work to keep templates happy
>   - requires a basic understanding of oop
>
> So to sum up: We already have a working example for circulation (though
> not in production)
> that we can demonstrate. It reimplements basically the entire
> C4::Circulation, just some small
> parts missing. So it can be done.
>
> But we'd love to hear second opinions from the community! We know the fear
> for breaking changes, but
> its neither scary or complicated to implement!
>
> Benjamin Rokseth
> Oslo Public Library
> ___
> 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/
>
___
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 :