[Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

[Hartmaier Alexander]

On 2016-10-06 21:15, Darren Duncan wrote:
> On 2016-10-06 8:43 AM, Matt S Trout wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:17:49PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
>>> That would be good, also in light with how that sentence continues:
>>>
>>> "I suspect what we need to try and achieve is to get DBIC a bit more
>>> decentralised - have it be a specific framework build atop a
>>> more-like-Plack-for-DB-stuff - but you already know that's what I
>>> have in mind and we both already know it's going to be a big-ass job
>>> and we'll see if it pans out or not."
>>>
>>> My own near term planned contributions to DBIC are precisely what
>>> you said above.  They would constitute a more-like-Plack-for-DB
>>> ecosystem and in particular they should benefit DBIC by optimizing
>>> it more for maintainability, so it is easier for others to add
>>> features or make changes or otherwise just be more confident that it
>>> works properly.  If things go as I hope, this should start to land
>>> in about a month.
>>
>> I think anything that's in that sort of vicinity is likely to be a big
>> enough set of changes that it'll (a) need to wait until whatever new
>> administration we end up with is settled in (b) need a decent RFC
>> process
>> and advance discussion of the risk/reward trade-offs involved.
>>
>> After all, when I say "big-ass job" I'm generally not kidding about
>> that,
>> and at this point it looks like it's not only going to be a big-ass job,
>> but a big-ass job we're going to have to conduct without the help of the
>> person I was relying on being the other half of the architecture team
>> for
>> it.
>>
>> So, I mean, "cool" but also "this is going to need serious
>> discussion" and
>> especially "please don't get your hopes up about 'near term'".
>
> Not to worry, and I agree.
>
> The first version of the thing that I was intending to land in the
> short term was only intended to be, on its own, classified as a green
> field experiment or proof of concept.  It would NOT by any means be
> intended for production as is.
>
> Basically I am working on a Plack-for-DB as an independent project,
> and I was going to use an experimental fork of DBIC (on GitHub) as an
> initial test case by roughly replacing DBIC guts to use that project
> while using the fact that DBIC's pristine automated test suite as a
> validation that DBIC still behaves correctly with the changed internals.
>
> The new administration of DBIC can then use this working proof of
> concept in their discussions on how they want to formally evolve
> DBIC.  My experiment would constitute an RFC for how would you like to
> use my Plack-for-DB, or adapt its design, to implement DBIC features
> that were long desired but not provided.
>
> -- Darren Duncan
Isn't DBI 'Plack-for-DB'?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
> IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
> SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
> Searchable Archive:
> http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk



*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*
T-Systems Austria GesmbH Rennweg 97-99, 1030 Wien
Handelsgericht Wien, FN 79340b
*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*
Notice: This e-mail contains information that is confidential and may be privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then
delete this e-mail immediately.
*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*