Re: Re: Common DB Abstraction Layer:

On Wednesday 21 November 2001 16:24, Joao Prado Maia wrote: > On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Martin Jansen wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:19:44 -0500 (EST), Joao Prado Maia wrote: > > >If PEAR::DB is not abstracting the database what is the purpose of > > > such a library ? > > > > To ease the life of lot's of programmers. > > 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". > Personally I don't see the idea or position should be so strict. PEAR DB provides the things the users requested. I think there are no more things because there isn't a real need for them in common environment. About the discussion if PEAR DB abstracts the database or the API, what can I tell you, I use PEAR DB with Postgres, Mysql, ODBC (Navision, MS SQL, Access) with almost no portability problems. Only needs you to do the SQL work in a very standar way and sometimes use PHP code for some things. If someone comes here saying: "hey I implemented this exotic feature for PEAR DB" I don't see the reason for dropping it only bacause is "not the objective". The only objective I see is that it has to be useful for the developers. Tomas V.V.Cox