[Cubicweb] [RFC] folding yams, rql and logilab-database into the cubicweb repository
Christophe de Vienne
christophe at unlish.com
Wed Mar 16 21:09:58 CET 2016
Le 16/03/2016 18:26, Julien Cristau a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 18:09:13 +0100, Nicolas Chauvat wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 05:00:23PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
>>> One possible downside is that this move would discourage use of
>>> rql/yams/lgdb outside of cubicweb.
>> It would also contribute to make cubicweb even more monolithic, which
>> I see as a problem.
>>> I don't think those hypothetical uses warrant making cubicweb
>>> development more painful (and in the case of lgdb, I would tend to
>>> think nobody should base a new project on it).
>> What would people recommend using instead of yams and lgdb ?
> AFAIK sqlalchemy core provides pretty much all of lgdb's useful
> features. I've considered porting cubicweb to use sqlalchemy several
> times, but that is also something that would be much easier if lgdb was
> not a separate project.
> I don't know the domain enough to have suggestions about yams.
>> My opinion is that removing code is always better than merging two
>> projects (and that better drawing the line between two
>> projects/components to make them independent and reduce coupling is
>> better than merging them).
I agree the lines between yams, lgdb, rql and cubicweb could be better
defined but as Julien suggests:
> Be that as it may, I don't think that reflects a choice we have here,
> considering available resources.
given how coupled they are today (especially yams & cubicweb), I see the
merging as the easiest path to lighten the maintenance cost.
> If there's one line that could be drawn it's probably to get rid of
> cubicweb's web interface. That's a bunch of work in and of itself,
> though, and doesn't solve the problems we're having today (and have been
> having for years) when anything in the schema changes.
Totally agree with this. The data engine should be a separate package,
easy to embed into other applications. The default cubicweb instance
comes with way too much AppObjects activated.
Christophe de Vienne
More information about the Cubicweb