Re: general questions

Hi ADOdb already has a beta version that supports the PEAR DB API. Simply do the following in ADOdb 1.54. <? include_once "adodb-pear.inc.php"; $db = DB::connect( "mysql://$dbuser:$dbpass@$dbhost/$dbname" ); $sql = 'SELECT * FROM demo'; $demoResult = $db->query($sql); while ($demoRow = $demoResult->fetchRow()) { echo $demoRow[2] . '<br>'; } ?> You can get it at http://php.weblogs.com/adodb Speedwise, it is currently faster than using the native PEAR DB according to my benchmarks. Beta testers are encouraged to apply! Bye, John Jason Lotito <jason@lehighweb.com> wrote in message news:005101c1785b$995beca0$74003bd0@genric... > > 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 >