Re: Re: [PEPr] Proposal for Database::DB_Table

Hi, Lukas,

If it is the name that throws one off, I could change it to, say, DB_TABLE_UNIXTIME or something like that to make it more clear this is a Unix timestamp type and not some other timestamp type.

Yeah definitely call it DB_TABLE_UNIXTIME then.

Not a problem. [fast forward]

Or maybe there is a third option. Maybe Paul can fit his stuff into DB_Storage while maintaining BC.

I am good with this if Daniel is.

So all in all from a roadmap perspective I feel the way to go is this: - scratch the current itch with a simple straight forward solution as Paul is proposing (details still up for discussion) and make this part of PEAR::DB (ideally fitting this into DB_Stotage) - fix up PEAR::DB, maintain it actively but stop adding features - come up with a concept for a php5 only pdo based PEAR::DB_2 which will be based in PEAR::MDB2 - create DB_Schema - create a new DataObject which can work with either MDB2 or DB_2

Good with this too. Should we continue the DB_Table discussion as it is, or should we start a new thread? Of coruse, this depends on Daniel. What do you say, man, you got room for a malcontent like me in DB_Storage? -- Paul M. Jones pmjones@ciaweb.net Savant: the simple alternative to Smarty. http://phpsavant.com/