Standard library or example implementations

I would welcome Typesafe attention on making JDBC and many other core
libs more FP friendly (a-la IO that the made). That would be really
helpful in removing dependency on JDK libs (that are in some cases
plain ugly in Scala).

--
Nikita Ivanov
GridGain Systems
www.gridgain.com

On Jun 17, 5:55 pm, John Nilsson wrote:
> I just watched Martins keynote from Scala Exchange 2011 and it got me thinking.
>
> There seems to be lots of plans to add various things to the standard
> library. For example there was talk about adding a databse DSL. Is
> this really a good idea?
>
> I'm thinking that adding all this stuff to the standard library is risky.
>
> * You risk promoting an implementation that is "premature" in that
> later experiments by third parties proves to be better in some
> respects. Which leads to all sorts of issues regarding support and
> deprecations.
> * By doing it in the standard library you spend resources on specific
> sub-domains that could potentially be better spent on more generic
> infrastructure.
> * The life cycle of the library is tied to the language. So new
> releases of either has to be synced with the other.
> * By having a standard implementation there might be less of an
> incentive by third parties to explore the area.
> * The standard library gets bigger. I don't know how much of a problem
> this is but the very existence of project jigsaw suggests that it
> could be.
>
> So instead of expanding the standard library, how about doing these
> kinds of things as prototypes, distributed separately as subprojects.
> Example implementations that can be used before there are good third
> party solutions. This implementation will also serve as the test for
> more generic features that can be adopted by said third parties.
>
> BR,
> John

Yes I think that adding standard DB library would be a good idea. There are several Scala DB libraries already, some pretty cute and useful, yet none comprehensive and well-supported, as enterprise customers would require.

So, I think such library would be a step forward, as long as its complexity stays manageable of course. Scala couterpart of JDBC would be nice. Analog of EJB would not be much appreciated.

On Jun 17, 2011, at 5:55 PM, John Nilsson wrote:

> I just watched Martins keynote from Scala Exchange 2011 and it got me thinking.
>
> There seems to be lots of plans to add various things to the standard
> library. For example there was talk about adding a databse DSL. Is
> this really a good idea?
>
> I'm thinking that adding all this stuff to the standard library is risky.
>
> * You risk promoting an implementation that is "premature" in that
> later experiments by third parties proves to be better in some
> respects. Which leads to all sorts of issues regarding support and
> deprecations.
> * By doing it in the standard library you spend resources on specific
> sub-domains that could potentially be better spent on more generic
> infrastructure.
> * The life cycle of the library is tied to the language. So new
> releases of either has to be synced with the other.
> * By having a standard implementation there might be less of an
> incentive by third parties to explore the area.
> * The standard library gets bigger. I don't know how much of a problem
> this is but the very existence of project jigsaw suggests that it
> could be.
>
> So instead of expanding the standard library, how about doing these
> kinds of things as prototypes, distributed separately as subprojects.
> Example implementations that can be used before there are good third
> party solutions. This implementation will also serve as the test for
> more generic features that can be adopted by said third parties.
>
> BR,
> John