Front page | perl.dbi.dev |
Postings from September 2011
David Nicol wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net> wrote: >> So what say you? > > I think you can do this without any change to DBI. > > You have your own DBI-like framework; you could declare that anything > that passes your conformance suite > is compliant, and offer low-impact patches to your favorite DBD > modules where the glue is too thick for your > aesthetics. My own DBI-like project is a red herring for this discussion. > How mandatory, currently, is the "mandatory shared codebase?" Are > there really traps and snares preventing > a different framework from using DBD modules? I'm presuming that there > aren't; ICBW. My proposal here is all about today's DBI users, not my own DBI-like project. In fact, the whole point of my proposal is that there doesn't need to be a "framework" at all. No common piece of code you need to use any database. I mentioned PSGI for a reason. PSGI is a *protocol*, not a framework. You don't need any specific piece of code to use PSGI. I could have said HTTP etc instead, but PSGI was more appropriate because it basically defines a protocol consisting of a routine API that takes arguments formatted a certain way as input and has a result formatted a certain way, and no dependencies than Perl itself. So getting away from the "framework" mentality is the point here. -- Darren Duncan P.S. I expressly do *not* call my project a "framework" either.Thread Previous | Thread Next