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

On Jan 7, 2004, at 8:57 PM, Daniel Convissor wrote:

Lukas and Paul: On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:07:09AM +0100, Lukas Smith wrote:

Or maybe there is a third option. Maybe Paul can fit his stuff into DB_Storage while maintaining BC. This would breath new life into code that was left to bitrot more or less.

It doesn't matter to me what happens. I haven't used, let alone even really looked at the DB_storage subclass. Nor have I taken a look at Paul's proposal. So, I don't have any insights as to how the two may or may not fit together. If they're so similar, then sure, use Pauls concepts to enhance storage.php. But you're mentioning efforts to maintain compatibility. If there are going to have to be lots of contortions to have compatibility, it might be best to make it a separate subclass in DB.

Of the options, then, a separate subclass in DB sounds best. Whose approval do I need to continue on that track (vice accepting a separate DB_Table package)? -- Paul M. Jones pmjones@ciaweb.net Savant: the simple alternative to Smarty. http://phpsavant.com/