Re: promised trace flags change - a bit late

On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 12:16:33PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 12:29:09 +0000, Tim Bunce <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > 
> > As you note above, the current trace settings are encoded into an int:
> > 
> >       #      0xddDDDDrL (driver, DBI, reserved, Level)
> > 
> > Where L is the DBI trace level (0-16) and the rest are bit flags.
> > The 4 reserved bits could be used as a driver trace level (0-16).
> 
> #   0xddlDDDrL (driver, driver-level, DBI, reserved, Level)
> 
> would be perfect in my world.

That's fine.

> l than is "level" to DBD, what "L" is to DBI
> 
> How many bits in DDDD do you think will ever be used? If we now use 2
> or 3, wouldn't it be better to change to
> 
> #  0xddlDDDrL ?
> 
> Which would mean that we stay 100% backward compatible (as the first D
> of DDDD was only reserved but never used.

Yeap.

> With this scheme, it is extremely easy for all drivers to update their
> docs to match DBI. Those drivers that used a level will just have to
> use the 'l', those that used flags will (still) have to use the dd.
> 
> We could then document the use and support of DBD_VERBOSE to
> automatically translate to the ddl part. If a DBD already supported
> $DBD_VERBOSE instead of "ddl", it will work just as it did, if the DBD
> updates to the new scheme (requiring DBI-1.xxx that supports it), then
> the "upgrade" is automatic and doesn't change a thing from the user
> point of view.
> 
> Am I being messy? Or does this all make sense?

I think it makes sense.

Thanks.

Tim.