http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=7417
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Druart <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #17 and comment #13) > My experience with Moose and CGI is that it's kind of slow. This seems like > a huge problem on something as core as authority and bibliographic record > objects. Also, after I tried to get the solr code working on my system Moose > no longer functions. Choosing between core functionality (with a version of > Moose that installs) and Solr (with a complex install procedure that will > presumably leave Moose not working elsewhere) seems like a bad choice. Yes, it is a debian packages problem. Not easy to solve :-/ It for what I speak about Moo (a minimalist Moose, light-weight, less dependencies, etc.) In all cases it is a decision to have after a global discussion. > It's easy to do a follow up to change the name. If you tell me what you'd > like it called, I will do a follow-up that changes the name. I think it > should probably be Koha::DataObject::Authority, based on the RFC, but I > decided to just call it "Koha::Authority" until I had a second opinion. It seems this modification will be removing all ambiguity. > > For new files, I think a best practice is to use "use Modern::Perl" instead > > of "use strict; use warnings;" > > But nothing is written on the wiki. You are free to keep these lines. > I'm not attached to them. :) Great, no discussion :) > > Before introducing new important classes (as Authority) in the Koha > > namespace, I think it is important to start a global discussion. What do we > > want for this new namespace and for this rewriting ? > I think we want it to work, and provide much-needed features. Hum yes, but it is not precise. I didn't wait an exact answer :) (for now...) > I don't think I see the benefit here. Don't get me wrong, I really like the > idea of Moose, but the speed issue, and the errors every time I try to load > it, make me think that we're better off using Class::Accessor, which we > already use elsewhere in Koha to great success. If we have 2 modules to change when we will be choosing, it would be easy. If we have 15 modules using Moose, Class:Accessor and whatever, we will reproduce a new C4 shambles :-/ For me, this patch can passed QA if the module are moved (Koha::Authority => Koha::DataObject::Authority). But I think using Class::Accessor is not what we want. We should (re)rewrite modules using it. I hope you understand my goal is not to be annoy you or to waste your time ! ;-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
