Re: [binarycloud-dev] Re: [PEAR-DEV] Re: [metabase-dev] RE:[PEAR-DEV] New Metabase Aniversary release

Hello, "Stig S. Bakken" wrote: > It is definitely not my intention to have several database abstraction > layers. The most-used classes are best kept unique, and database > abstraction seems to be the most obvious one of these. > > But to respond to Manuel's request: *yes*, I do want to see Metabase and > PEAR DB merge. But as Lukas says, we have to see that the merger works > before we can commit to replacing the current stuff. Thank you for being clear and indeed consistent with your original position on the matter. I think that now the time that Lukas is willing to invest on making an initial proof of concept will not be wasted. For now, I think the proof of concept is just a PEAR-DB API wrapper around Metabase as I suggested. Then we can evaluate if it is suitable to please "greeks and trojans". If it is, and I trust it can be, he may finish the effort by reformatting whatever is needed to satisfy the PEAR coding standards. This is the heavy part of the effort because Metabase code has now over 12.500 lines of code, so it is better to postpone this reformatting until is agreed that the solution is satisfactory Meanwhile I suggest that you hurry the formation of PEAR core administration so that by the time Lukas finishes making the proof of concept, you may be ready to make the final decision on the PEAR part. On my part, I will work on splitting Metabase drivers in several modules that may be loaded on demand so PHP won't need to load and compile modules that may not be necessary or may be interchangeable, like schema management and datatype conversion. Everybody is confortable with this plan suggestion? Regards, Manuel Lemos