Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Your skill will accomplish
what the force of many cannot
 
PerlMonks  

Re: DBIx::Simple - Your opinions/review please

by metaperl (Curate)
on Aug 01, 2011 at 16:15 UTC ( #917878=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to DBIx::Simple - Your opinions/review please

In case you haven't used DBIx::Simple yet, please do give it a try and let me know how things went. I'd really appreciate a thorough review, especially from someone who has experience with DBI and/or DBIx modules.
Juerd, as the reviews show, this is a great module. It's my favorite way to access Perl databases. However, there are some issues with the module that are not receiving a timely response.

REPO

I emailed you 2 weeks ago about putting the source code for ::Simple in a public repo and you said you might, which is not definitive and doesnt encourage collaboration.

MAP_FIELDS

I demonstrated the utility of a map_field method and you did not agree to add one. I need one. It seems a good companion to map_hashes

OUTSTANDING BUGS

There are 2 active bugs, both over 5 months old that you have not responded to or addressed.

NO RESPONSE TO EMAILED BUG

48 hours ago, I emailed you another issue along with a test case, and you have said nothing. I repeat it below for others to confirm/observe:

unorthodox scalar weakening leads to premature statment handle destruction

Hi Juerd.
  1. any further thoughts on a public repo?
  2. if you download this folder and run test.pl, you will note that Case 3 returns a destroyed object because of the use of method chaining ( $dbixsimple->query->hashes ) . If line 165 in DBIx/Simple.pm has the quote marks removed from $self, then this case works fine, just like Case 1 and Case 2.

    The problem is caused by line 158 in your code, where you attempt to hide a reference to the database handle by double-quoting it within the statement handle.

    Is there a reason you didnt use Scalar::Util::Weaken instead of quoting an object like that? And why was such manual reference counting necessary anyway?

CONCLUSION

DBIx::Simple is a wonderful module, but it is in need of upkeep.



The mantra of every experienced web application developer is the same: thou shalt separate business logic from display. Ironically, almost all template engines allow violation of this separation principle, which is the very impetus for HTML template engine development.

-- Terence Parr, "Enforcing Strict Model View Separation in Template Engines"


Comment on Re: DBIx::Simple - Your opinions/review please
Select or Download Code
Re^2: DBIx::Simple - Your opinions/review please
by Corion (Pope) on Aug 01, 2011 at 16:21 UTC

    Are you sure that this should have been posted instead of emailed?

    To me, you sound an awful lot like throwing a tantrum just because the author does not respond favourably and promptly to your suggestions.

    If you feel that you need a response time of below 48 hours, maybe you could consider a support contract with Juerd? I'm not sure of your licensing agreement, but I'm sure that if it is backed with the appropriately generous financial circumstances, it will be looked on favourably.

      I think it's important to note here that this is not merely a case of a 48 hour silence, but one of at least one legit bug being ignored for 7 months, and another email being ignored for two weeks; coupled with no clear path of providing patches or documented author's intent. (Did he abandon it, did he start rewriting it from scratch? Who knows!)

      His frustration is certainly understandable to me, especially as i've been in similar situations.

      How about, instead of mocking and lambasting him, we try to help him channel his passion into a positive direction? DBIx::Simple can really need some love, which its father does not seem willing to provide anymore.

        I'm not sure that reviving some six year old thread is the best apporoach to get an answer from Juerd about the module. I'm not privy to metaperls intentions, but if they are to get bugs fixed, the approach taken strikes me as somewhat odd. The bugs are not reported via the traditional bug reporting venue, rt.cpan.org, but hidden in the last point of the post, seemingly copied from some other email without showing care about the formulation. Metaperl is aware of the traditional venue for reporting bugs. If there is doubt in whether RT is used by Juerd, maybe that question could have been cleared by email.

        If the intent is to antagonize Juerd or to vent the metaperls disappointment, I understand the cathartical effect, but I disagree with the idea of doing so here.

        If the intent is to take over maintenance of the module, metaperl should maybe have mentioned that as a constructive way of resolving the issue.

        I get the impression of an air of entitlement of metaperl to a speedy response, as metaperl mentions lack of reaction within 48 hours multiple times. I'm not sure this sense of entitlement or disregard for the personal situation of Juerd (whatever it might be) warrants anything else than mocking. And, on a more serious side, if you really need an SLA with a reaction time below 48 hours after reporting an error, I think you will need to talk to the author about arranging such an agreement with compensate remuneration.

        I think it's important to note here that this is not merely a case of a 48 hour silence, but one of at least one legit bug being ignored for 7 months

        One of the two open "bugs" was a licensing issue, the other was a non-issue because that one had already been addressed in a previous release.

        In any case, all bugs in the RT queue have now been addressed; the licensing "bug" is still open, metaperl's ticket and the duplicate report were rejected, as was an open feature request.

        RT is there, but I prefer bug reports by e-mail. My CPAN mail address redirects to /dev/null because it accumulated an enormous amount of spam that after forwarding is pretty hard to filter accurately. As a result, I don't get e-mail notifications from new RT tickets. I never asked for an RT queue; it is created automatically and there is nothing CPAN authors can do about it.

Re^2: DBIx::Simple - Your opinions/review please
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Aug 01, 2011 at 16:29 UTC
    I emailed you 2 weeks ago ... 48 hours ago, I emailed you ...

    Looking at Juerd's homenode I notice he hasn't been around here for over 3 weeks.

    Hm. A man who lives in Northern Europe, MIA for a few weeks in the height of the Northern hemispheres summer months. I wonder where he might be...

    The expression Fork you! (or possible You fork!) comes to mind.


    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

        My point was that as your need seems to be quite urgent, and you know what changes you want made, you could make a local fork to satisfy your own immediate needs.

        It would also serve to allow you to demonstrate the efficacy of your changes and as the basis of a patch which might sway the outcome of your request.


        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
Re^2: DBIx::Simple - Your opinions/review please
by metaperl (Curate) on Aug 03, 2011 at 19:11 UTC
    The response to my feedback on DBIx:::Simple was quite negative, reaching even beyond Perlmonks. Many people felt the need to contact mst about my behavior instead of saying something to me directly.

    There was a complete misunderstanding of one point of my post. In no way, was I asking Juerd to implement something. I was asking him to add something. If you had read the linked thread, you would see 2 implementations there, one by me and one by Juerd. The issue was adding it.

Re^2: DBIx::Simple - Your opinions/review please
by Juerd (Abbot) on Sep 01, 2011 at 19:18 UTC

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://917878]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others imbibing at the Monastery: (8)
As of 2014-10-25 10:41 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    For retirement, I am banking on:










    Results (142 votes), past polls