[Dbix-class] SQLA refactor: proposal

[Les Fletcher]

I am definitely interested in helping out.  Getting my current set up 
working was... interesting.  The extension is definitely tied to 
DBIx::Class and your overrides.  Moving the SQL translation out of 
DBIx::Class would be make life a lot nicer.  Unfortunately, I won't have 
a chance to take a look at the MuldisD stuff until next week at the 
earliest.  Looking forward to working on this.

Les

Matt S Trout wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 04:09:04PM -0800, Les Fletcher wrote:
>   
>> One thing I have been working on recently is a SQL::Abstract::MySQL 
>> package to that allows for some MySQL non-standard extensions to be 
>> used.  Things like replace, limits on delete, delayed and low priority, 
>> and index forcing commands.  (The first iteration has things that my 
>> company is interested in making use of.) The idea was that it would be 
>> done in such a way that SQL::Abstract could also be sub-classed to 
>> support other database vendors (SQL::Abstract::MSSQL or 
>> SQL::Abstract::Oracle for example).
>>
>> I have not yet had a chance to look through Language::MuldisD, but I was 
>> wondering where a rework like this would leave such projects.
>>     
>
> Having a better, saner way of extending SQL::Abstract to provide this
> sort of thing, I'd hope :) - especially since things like REPLACE really
> need to be supported all the way through the toolchain and emulated for
> databases that don't have an equivalent (e.g. it strikes me that REPLACE is
> basically create_or_update, to a great extent).
>
> If you want a commit bit to the refac branch you could dive in and we could
> work together to make sure the end result works for you - making SQL dialects
> easy to implement (the current SQL::Abstract code isn't IMO particularly
> easy to override, and I think as author of most of the DBIC overrides I can
> speak with some authority to that :) is a significant part of what we want
> to achieve from this refactor.
>  
>   
>> On a slightly separate note, I have "working" version of the above 
>> SQL::Abstract::MySQL and some of the reworking of DBIx::Class required 
>> the ability to pass in an attributes hash for insert, create, delete and 
>> other such functions.  I am getting some failed test because of it.  Is 
>> there any reason why the function that are currently only taking one 
>> hash ref (like insert or delete) shouldn't also take a second attribute 
>> hash that allows for extensions?
>>     
>
> Don't see why not. You fancy putting together a branch off trunk/0.09 and
> having a go at implementing it?
>
>