Posted by marvil07 on July 23, 2009 at 6:40pm
3 followers
| Project: | Version Control API |
| Version: | 6.x-2.x-dev |
| Component: | API module |
| Category: | feature request |
| Priority: | normal |
| Assigned: | Unassigned |
| Status: | closed (duplicate) |
| Issue tags: | git phase 2, integration |
Issue Summary
sdboyer started a branch about using d7 database layer with the backport module dbtng. I rebase it on top of my oop branch.
It looks interesting.. so, what do you think about this integration?
- do it on oop branch or
- defer it using a no so updated oop-dbtng branch, like now.
Comments
#1
jpetso is ok with this integration too like we chat some minutes ago, but after dww comments I would prefer to maintain those mentioned branches some more time
#2
We should be 100% on wanting to do this. It will vastly simplify the internals of the code, and allow the focus to come off the API as basically a querybuilder. (really, that's most of what it is right now).
#3
#4
forgot the patch started by sdboyer, let's keep this in the queue until a more intrusive patch :-p
#5
this is really a necessary part of making the code maintainable for d.o. and besides, we might as well strike while the iron's hot...
#6
If this is intended for drupal.org we need to get approval from the powers that be for dbtng module soon, it has some major drawbacks in certain areas, namely that it opens a second DB connections since the PDO driver can't reuse the mysqli connection.
#7
I got approval (in concept, at least) for this years ago from killes, though now that we're actually doing it, it probably needs revisiting.
#8
I'm making a big patch of the sdboyer work at github. Let's end up this work here so we can discuss about the changes before committing.
Pasting commit descriptions:
I'll be commenting on this patch in the next days.
#9
I think we should either mark this or #831896: Refactor VC API to use DBTNG & an Entities-like system as duplicates, or we should split the patch in two.
#10
Let's actually mark this one the duplicate (sorry, given that you just posted that patch here), as that other issue has more information about the approach I'm taking over on github.