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&FR_ID=4715&PROXY_ID=2706639&PROXY_TYPE=20&1395.donation=form1&s_src=CHORUS&s_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 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
