Development talk:DB layer 2.0 migration docs

• The developer reading this article MUST read XMLDB Documentation (at least Introduction + three first Developing section pages) otherwise he's going to ask plenty of questions :) It could be very good that the first line of this article be: "In order to understand this article you need to know how works the database abstraction layer in Moodle (previous to 2.0)".

• API link is broken (=> http://php.moodle.org/ "Server not found")

• We know that some changes need to be done on 2.0. But on what?

All these examples concerns the glossary module. It would be good to indicate it first. When I read it first, I didn't really know what was going to be explained in XMLDB changes. In fact all this section is about "Updating your upgrade.php file for Moodle 2.0". Conclusion: we really need a clear first sentence for the all "XMLDB changes" section. So we know what we are going to read. Once I knew what is about, all was very clear.

• If we don't make any change on DDL code we shouldn't make it as a section/block. The DDL section should be a note. If you remove this section don't forget to update: "Changes below are grouped into 3 main blocks" => "Changes below are grouped into 2 main blocks"

• DML section:

this is about to change all DML code, in all Moodle files? I think it miss an introduction line as well.

• Maybe you should use more the word: YOU should do that, YOU do this, YOU ... The developer will feel more guided.

Note: I wrote this comment on first read.

Note 2: I'm new as dev in Moodle, and I've just discover all the power of Moodle XMLDB reading. All the current XMLDB looks awesome, I don't even talk about the coming 2.0 :)

Jerome mouneyrac 22:22, 22 May 2008 (CDT)

random things

1 I added a marker re add_index or somesuch, is it really renamed add_key or is that just a copy/paste error? If it is correct, needs changing to emphasise that the function has really changed.

2 The section with nothing in it (DDL) should probably be removed :)

3 'Golden' and 'iron' makes no sense at all to me, nor did the explanation. Could we rename these in some way?

4 The example using named params should probably be changed to use better names for the params eg fn, ln - if you're using 'param1' and 'param2' you should use use the ordered one.

5 Some of the examples are unnecessarily wordy - for example, why put the array into a variable then call the function? It only has two elements, you can do it in the same line no problem.

6 Wow this new system is a fantastic improvement (except for the new IN function which is kind of nasty)

Sam marshall 04:32, 3 June 2008 (CDT)