RE: [PEAR-DEV] general questions

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Martin Jansen wrote: > > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:26:26 +0100, Lukas Smith wrote: > > > > >The package obviously has to be named something ... the current DB > > >package is called "DB" .. what would this "other" package > be called? > > > > DB_Metabase. > > > > BTW: I still don't see a good reason why we should have _two > > different_ abstraction layers in PEAR. > > > > Exactly. I feel it will become very strange to use two > different packages for database abstraction. IMHO either port > the features of Metabase to a PEAR-like interface (_please_ > keep the current get*() and fetch*() > methods) or forget about it. > > I mean, the best way on this case is having an experimental > tree of a 'new' DB package with the Metabase stuff, and work > on that tree preserving the current features of PEAR::DB that > people love and adding the special stuff of Metabase. Naming > it another thing would be kind of weird. > > Or did I miss something ? > > Joao I would have to agree with Joao here. PEAR doesn't need another Abstraction layer. Also, maintaining the standards of PEAR is important. I like jpm's idea of having the Pear Like interface would make the transition easier for PEAR users. +1 Jason Lotito jason@lehighweb.com www.NewbieNetwork.net