Re: general questions

Hello, Joao Prado Maia wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Lukas Smith wrote: > > > A couple of questions about Pear DB: > > To the question of keeping two Db abstraction layers or only one: Yes I > > think it makes sense keeping only one abstraction layer. And since the > > API will have to change for metabase (and this is one of its main > > weaknesses) obviously metabase also has a userbase to think off. > > > > I'm probably not wrong when saying that PEAR::DB has a bigger userbase > than Metabase. I personally know a lot of people / projects that already > use PEAR::DB (including the company I work for) and don't know many people > that use Metabase (except for the BC folks). The numbers really don't > matter though, the important part is that the current API of PEAR::DB is > being used in production and I'm sure that the Metabase API is also being > used. According to the PHP Classes site, there are over 7.300 unique real users that downloaded Metabase from there, regardless if all of them are actually using it. Besides that there are Binary Cloud users and users that may have got Metabase from books that I have been requested to allow Metabase to be included in a CD that goes with those books. > > Also feature wise metabase is miles away from PEAR from what I have > > gathered looking at the mebabase docs and tutorial compared what I found > > in the Pear DB tutorials in the support section of pear.php.net. Manuel > > has already planned making metabase a bit more lightweight if you do not > > need the advanced functionality. And I have heard that the binarycloud > > team already did some work in that realm with an addition they did. But > > anyways the current Pear DB folks will have to accept the fact that > > porting metabase to Pear will open a whole new world of features. Not > > just the xml schema stuff. So don't expect the Pear way of doing things > > to be the end all be all. Because Pear DB currently isn't. This is just > > a side note. > > > > It may be "miles away" from PEAR::DB, but there are also "miles" of users > that don't necessarily need or want to use the advanced features of > Metabase on their day-to-day developments (myself included). So please > don't take that for granted, as a reason for dropping the current PEAR::DB > API altogether. I think there is some misunderstanding. The point is not to drop PEAR-DB API but to evolve it to support Metabase features so PEAR-DB users can benefit from them. For those that will want to use the XML Schema management, they may use Metabase as it is now as it is mostly something separate of the actual Metabase drivers. Regards, Manuel Lemos