|No such thing as a small change|
persisting Moose objects and schema evolutionby morgon (Curate)
|on Apr 07, 2009 at 23:33 UTC||Need Help??|
morgon has asked for the
wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:
In the near future I will have to face the problem of persisting Moose-based objects in a relational database which of course is not a problem as such.
Now presumably there will be an evolution as far as the objects/classes are concerned as new requirements need to be addressed or the code gets refactored - or put more simply: Some attributes could get added, other may get removed.
What I want to achive now is a way to decouple the evolution of the class-level from the database-level, i.e. I want to have a way to change (some) aspects of the class without having to change the database-schema (which from my experience gets messy once an application is in production).
So what I am thinking about is this:
All our classes will be based on Moose, i.e. they can be easily (and also generically) serialized as either XML or YAML.
In this way I could change the latter set of attributes without affecting the database-schema.
The way I would implement it is via a class-trait that would allow individual attributes to be tagged as either belonging to the first or second group.
If the above is understandable at all: Does that make sense to you or would it be just a bad idea (if so why?).
This is just a vague idea I had (and by now I probably had one beer too many) so I am sorry if it just sounds like gibberish to you.
Many thanks anyway!