Re: Re: DB_DataObject and MDB

Hans Lellelid wrote:

I suggest in the short term, it is called DB_DataObject_MDB, and extends DB_DataObject it should help as a) there are quite a few 'non-specific methods' that may not need touching. b) it's alot easier to see what the major differences are.. Eventually we can depreciate DB_DataObjects, and remove the inheritance. (perhaps even reversing the A extends B) and rename it to [M]DB[2]_DataObjects[2] or something....

This isn't really the point of my post, but why not just DAO -- or DataObject -- are there some other non-DB DAO solutions that might be confused? This whole thing w/ two db abstraction packages makes for some really messy naming -- MDB_DataObject, DB_NestedSet /

that is why the DB and MDB maintainers are currently discussing how we can unify things again (potentially making MDB2 the next major version of DB etc).

MDB_NestedSet?. I guess this is just a requirement of PEAR's naming system, but it seems kinda problematic to have these category names match top-level package names. Further off-topic, I think it would be neat if PEAR took a Horde-like approach and required packages to have unique names rather than using category names (which seems to really preclude multiple implementations of the same tool)? I think that would work a little better since it doesn't make this assumption that the "DB" package is the definitive answer to database abstraction.

Read the manual and the recent discussions on this. regards, Lukas Smith smith@backendmedia.com _______________________________ BackendMedia www.backendmedia.com berlin@backendmedia.com Linn Zwoch Smith GbR Pariser Str. 44 D-10707 Berlin Tel +49 30 83 22 50 00 Fax +49 30 83 22 50 07