Re^2: object-relational Perl programming: best practice or compromise?

DBIx::RecordSet, by contrast, uses a procedural interface, encourages the use of typeglobs and has no test suite (its "test.pl" does not count.)

I think you should look at the size and comprehensiveness of test.pl. It is not missing anything that the module documents as functionality --- I know, I maintained the module for one cycle. Further, you do not have to use typeglobs with Recordset... see the docs for detail. And finally, a procedural interface means that all of your object modelling and conceptualization is in one place and one place only: the database.

Comment on Re^2: object-relational Perl programming: best practice or compromise?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: object-relational Perl programming: best practice or compromise? by Ovid (Cardinal) on Oct 26, 2004 at 19:23 UTC
Ignoring the other issues and focusing on the important one: `test.pl` does not count as "tests." I've read through it and it looks reasonably comprehensive (tough to say, though), but it doesn't play well with `Test::Harness`. That's why it has all of the test failures being reported. Why the author decided to ignore the standard way of reporting tests, I can't say, but this does not inspire any confidence in me. If it starts to use Test::More, Test::Class, or some other testing tool that reports its output to Test::Harness, I'll take another look. Right now, because this type of software would be foundational, I can't recommend it. That would be irresponsible of me. (By this token, I even admit that a lot of my older code falls into the "can't recommend" category.) Cheers, Ovid New address of my CGI Course.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: object-relational Perl programming: best practice or compromise?
by Ovid (Cardinal) on Oct 26, 2004 at 19:23 UTC

Ignoring the other issues and focusing on the important one: test.pl does not count as "tests." I've read through it and it looks reasonably comprehensive (tough to say, though), but it doesn't play well with Test::Harness. That's why it has all of the test failures being reported. Why the author decided to ignore the standard way of reporting tests, I can't say, but this does not inspire any confidence in me. If it starts to use Test::More, Test::Class, or some other testing tool that reports its output to Test::Harness, I'll take another look. Right now, because this type of software would be foundational, I can't recommend it. That would be irresponsible of me. (By this token, I even admit that a lot of my older code falls into the "can't recommend" category.)

Cheers,
Ovid

New address of my CGI Course.

[reply]