Edit: It turns out there is already a module on CPAN that does exactly what I talked about here. Its called DBIx::Connector. I haven’t tried it yet, but it looks like the guy that wrote it designed it with input from the DBIC guys.

I’m a big fan of DBIx::Class. Among DBIC’s many great features is its superb transaction and connection handling via DBIx::Class::Storage::DBI. When I’m using raw DBI I feel like I’m missing these core components. I should always be able to expect robust transaction and connection handling.

I started playing around with creating a new CPAN module (something like DBIx::Robust, DBIx::Transaction, etc…) but each time I dove in to it I kept coming to the conclusion that DBIC’s DBI storage drivers provide everything I need and I would just be shooting myself in the foot by either porting DBIx::Class::Storage::DBI to a DBIC independent API or by writing it from scratch.

Before I go any further, let me show you how attractive and awesome DBIC’s storage layer is:

• Transactions may be nested, even without savepoints.
• Transaction savepoints can automatically be tracked allowing for reliable and incremental rollbacks.
• The appropriate DateTime::Format class is automatically determined based on the type of database.
• All database calls efficiently pass through a layer that detects stale connections that will attempt to re-connect to a database.

“There is no charge for awesomeness, or attractiveness.”

The DBIx::Class::Storage::DBI pod illustrates all this in a round-about way: “If you set AutoCommit => 0 in your connect info, then you are always in an assumed transaction between commits, and you’re telling us you’d like to manage that manually. A lot of the magic protections offered by this module will go away. We can’t protect you from exceptions due to database disconnects because we don’t know anything about how to restart your transactions. You’re on your own for handling all sorts of exceptional cases if you choose the AutoCommit => 0 path, just as you would be with raw DBI.”

This stuff is really powerful, and we should never have to work with databases in Perl without it. But, currently, it is only meant to work under DBIC, which is a shame. I’m betting that DBIx::Class::Storage::DBI could be used directly, bypassing DBIC completely. There is some DBIC stuff layered in there, but that should be ignorable.

What do the rest of you think? Has anyone considered moving this logic out in to a generic distribution that isn’t DBIC specific? Is there merit in what I’m talking about? Does anyone use DBIx::Class::Storage::DBI directly, bypassing DBIC?