Re: DBI drivers by duck-typing

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Darren Duncan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.

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

I've got the idea (and also the feeling that carrying on this
discussion on-list is dubious; but I think I might speak for others)
that your proposal is a change in one's way of looking at the
architecture, rather than a proposal for a change to the DBI. A lot of
other framework/module projects exist: firefox and qpsmtpd are but the
first examples that come to mind. Sometimes another framework can
replace the core, and plugins can be reused -- I think but am not
certain that chrome can handle some firefox plugins without
modification. I've often wanted to formalize the qpsmtpd plugin
interface to the point where a different MTA could use qpsmtpd plugins
unchaged, but haven't found the time for that. Actually the big SMTP
plugin framework is "milter" which is defined as a clean interface to
the point where other MTAs offer Milter interfaces.

Are you asking for something beyond documenting the DBI/DBD interface
to the point where a DBD can be used more directly than through the
DBI? Aside from requesting that everyone abandon the framework
mentality?

Are you asking for a stronger set of conventions in DBDs that will
make them more useful away from DBI? Are you proposing to write
thinner glue?