RE: [PEAR-DEV] MDB_Extended

> From: Matthias Nothhaft [mailto:php@mahono.de] > Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 9:10 PM > Hi Lukas Smith, you wrote: > >>From: Matthias Nothhaft [mailto:php@mahono.de] > >>Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 12:08 AM > > >> > >>$ext = $mdb->loadModule("Extended"); > >>$ext->queryOne(...); > >> > >>Wouldn't this reduce code? > > > > > > Well if I include the code all over the place in all modules then the > > benefit is mostly lost. The point is to make the module truly optional. > Isn't it truly optional yet? > Why do you think that you would lose benefit? > > Is it too much overhead to call > $ext = $mdb->loadModule(...) > in each method where you use a module? > > Can you give me an example of your "I have to duplicate tons of code"? The point is if I load the module all over the place I might as well leave the code in the core to begin with. > >>Maybe a abstract kind of iterator should be integrated to work with > >>both, unbuffered and buffered lists in the same way? > > > > > > Well if you use unbuffered queries you will just do query() and then > > fetchRow() in a loop and then free the result set once you are done. You > can > > do this with buffered queries as well. But you might as well just have a > > method query, fetch all data you want and free the result set, which is > what > > the query* methods do. > Yes, I know this, but what is the certain problem? > You have the queryXXX() and the getXXX() methods in "mod_Extended", > so it is "truly optional", isn't it? > > Did you ever benchmarked 1.x against the core of 2.x? > > Is there a real performance gain in 2.x? Well there is obviously a little gain if you don't use the module. There is a performance loss if you do (which to me will be the case). There is the benefit of having the API be a bit more "organized". So the question is more: Do you all think that you will be using the query*() (and get*()) methods all the time or are there people that will actually not load the extended module? > > The point of the native class is that it doesnt do any abstraction. Any > > similarities are "accidental". There is no emulation. If you use this > class > > you better know that you are only working with the correct backend. > This is clear to me, but why does the native classes > extend MDB_Native_Common? > > Where is this class? That was my question. Ah ... now I get it ... the way things are now is a mistake. I will probably remove the "extens". Regards, Lukas