Update lib/Pinto/Database.pm #19

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 1, 2012

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
Contributor

yanick commented Sep 30, 2012

typo on "prefetch"

Update lib/Pinto/Database.pm
typo on "prefetch"
Owner

thaljef commented Oct 1, 2012

Thanks! Looks like I never even use this subroutine. In fact, I'm not sure the whole Pinto::Database class is really necessary. I was trying to create an abstraction layer so that I could swap out DBIx::Class with Rose::DB if I wanted. But I doubt that will ever happen at this point.

thaljef pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 1, 2012

Jeffrey Ryan Thalhammer
Merge pull request #19 from yanick/patch-1
Update lib/Pinto/Database.pm

@thaljef thaljef merged commit b8c8697 into thaljef:master Oct 1, 2012

Contributor

yanick commented Oct 3, 2012

On 12-10-01 04:51 PM, Jeffrey Ryan Thalhammer wrote:

Thanks! Looks like I never even use this subroutine.

Funny thing, me neither. :-)  But I was peeking under Pinto's skirt to 

know how things are done and I saw it. And as you know, I can't leave a
typo without a patch. ;-)

In fact, I'm not
sure the whole Pinto::Database class is really necessary. I was trying
to create an abstraction layer so that I could swap out DBIx::Class with
Rose::DB if I wanted. But I doubt that will ever happen at this point.

Yeah, I would kinda agree. A few years ago, I started with Rose::DB 

which I found easier and more promising than DBIx::Class. Then
DBIx::Class got real better and kinda won the lion share's of the
general Perl hivemind. ... Although, now you got me curious. I should go
back to RoseDB and see how it feels, now that I'm slightly more
experienced than my blue-eyed self of yore. :-)

Joy,
`/anick

Owner

thaljef commented Oct 3, 2012

On Oct 2, 2012, at 6:40 PM, Yanick Champoux wrote:

But I was peeking under Pinto's skirt to know how things are done and I saw it.

What do you think of it? Criticisms are welcome.

I think the data model is basically correct, but I've probably violated some best practices of database design (naming conventions for columns, surrogate keys everywhere).

I'm also generally happy with the architecture. I think I have separated concerns into the right classes, but I don't have quite the right API on them yet. Hopefully that will improve with time.

I do wish I knew how to use Moose more effectively (especially in conjunction with DBIx::Class).

-Jeff

Contributor

yanick commented Oct 5, 2012

On 12-10-03 04:17 AM, Jeffrey Ryan Thalhammer wrote:

On Oct 2, 2012, at 6:40 PM, Yanick Champoux wrote:

But I was peeking under Pinto's skirt to know how things are done and
I saw it.

What do you think of it? Criticisms are welcome.

So far, I have both my thumbs firmly oriented skyward. Looks awesome. 

==b ^.^ d==

I think the data model is basically correct, but I've probably violated
some best practices of database design (naming conventions for columns,
surrogate keys everywhere).

Pinto is still young, it can get better. :-)  And considering that 

we're talking about a fairly small and contained database, I'm not
overly aghast at a few shortcuts. :-)

I'm also generally happy with the architecture. I think I have separated
concerns into the right classes, but I don't have quite the right API on
them yet. Hopefully that will improve with time.

The API already look sane.  There is surely improvement to be had, but 

that's only because there is always improvement to be had.

I do wish I knew how to use Moose more effectively (especially in
conjunction with DBIx::Class).

It'll come. :-)

And talking of using Pinto w/ Moose and stuff, I just wrote a blog 

entry with Pinto used as a backend for a smoking module:
http://babyl.dyndns.org/techblog/entry/smoke-module That was why I was
peeking at those database modules a few days ago. :-)

Joy,
`/anick

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment