Hi, Andy Lester schrieb:
> But I agree with you, it's frustrating that that's what people choose to > see. I think, everyone is very happy about the progress and a database interface. But on the other side, the majority only see the interface, and this doesn't look very perlish. So its obvious, that there will be complaints. You should read this complaints as encouragement, not as grumbling. DBI is one of the most important modules for Perl 5, even lots of people who don't know how to use CPAN use it. I think, that this will be the same for DBDI. Therefore it should be a good model for every Perl 6 developer. And it should use the same naming conventions which are usual for Perl 6. I don't know if there are some naming conventions for Perl 6 released yet, if not I strongly recommend to take this ones who are common for Perl 5. In other words: let's take them from Perl Best Practices. This means: method/subroutine names in small letters and words separated by an underline. And don't be too verbose by default. Even the Perl 5 core modules are not consistent: Data::Dumper has a "Dumper" sub, File::Temp a "tempfile". Perl 6 should not have such penalties. Yes, it would be possible to build an DBI style wrapper around DBDI; but I think it should have by default an optimal interface which is also optimised for performance. e.g. calling one method for each bind parameter looks not like the best performance ... ;-) But it seems not to be a big problem to add some sugar methods inside DBDI; so I am confident, that we will get an interface, which is not worse then the DBI one. Nevertheless: The internal use of the JDBC interface seems to me a good choice, because this (hopefully) reduces the complexity to create new drivers. Ciao Alvar -- ** Alvar C.H. Freude, http://alvar.a-blast.org/ ** http://www.assoziations-blaster.de/ ** http://www.wen-waehlen.de/ ** http://www.perl-blog.de/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
