Re: DBI drivers by duck-typing

David Nicol wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Darren Duncan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> So what say you?
> 
> I think you can do this without any change to DBI.
> 
> You have your own DBI-like framework; you could declare that anything
> that passes your conformance suite
> is compliant, and offer low-impact patches to your favorite DBD
> modules where the glue is too thick for your
> aesthetics.

My own DBI-like project is a red herring for this discussion.

> How mandatory, currently, is the "mandatory shared codebase?" Are
> there really traps and snares preventing
> a different framework from using DBD modules? I'm presuming that there
> aren't; ICBW.

My proposal here is all about today's DBI users, not my own DBI-like project.

In fact, the whole point of my proposal is that there doesn't need to be a 
"framework" at all.  No common piece of code you need to use any database.

I mentioned PSGI for a reason.  PSGI is a *protocol*, not a framework.  You 
don't need any specific piece of code to use PSGI.

I could have said HTTP etc instead, but PSGI was more appropriate because it 
basically defines a protocol consisting of a routine API that takes arguments 
formatted a certain way as input and has a result formatted a certain way, and 
no dependencies than Perl itself.

So getting away from the "framework" mentality is the point here.

-- Darren Duncan

P.S.  I expressly do *not* call my project a "framework" either.