Re: 3.0.10

On Sun, Jun 20, 1999 at 08:03:44PM -0400, Jim Winstead wrote: > On Jun 21, Sascha Schumann wrote: > > > I don't know. How to build an abstraction on top of differing > > > implementations of similar interfaces? How to reduce the amount > > > of clutter the abstraction introduces? To just implement it > > > and let people discover after the fact how cool it is, like > > > Sascha did with the dbm abstraction layer? > > > > Care to elaborate? DBA wasn't intended to replace dbm, it was > > thought to complement the dbm stuff. Do I need to remind you that > > it was _your_ suggestion to replace dbm with DBA? > > I know. I was just pointing that you just went ahead and implemented > something, without getting all twisted up in discussion about what > to do. I keep wishing someone would do that with the SQL database > abstraction layer. "Twisted up" is funny. I tried to start a discussion at least twice on this list, but noone seemed to be interested in it. Talk about "sexiness" of particular areas/code... -- Regards, Sascha Schumann Consultant