Re: Re: Common DB Abstraction Layer: Re: [PEAR-DEV] Adoption of Metabase

> I probably used a bad choice of words. What I really meant was: What is > the objective of PEAR::DB as a database abstraction library ? To abstract > as much as possible like Metabase already does, or to provide a unified > API to databases and leave the implementation related to database specific > to the user himself ? > > It's okay to choose the latter, but I believe we should have a unique > position on something like this, so we know what we are working for. A > statement like this will be very helpful when people come to the mailing > list saying that PEAR::DB doesn't abstract LOB's or any other exotic > feature, as we can just reply "that's not our objective". I completly agree as an enduser point of view. :) > Anyway, I think this is a good discussion. Should we define this discussion as a brainstorming about PEAR:DB roadmap ? ;)