Re: general questions

At 04:50 AM 11/30/01 -0200, Manuel Lemos wrote:

- We also agree that we think that PEAR::DB's design is more clean and well-structured than Metabase's one. Think about class relationships and etc here, not about its features. This is why we say that we rather add the advanced Metabase features to PEAR::DB instead of the opposite. Then you need read my proposal again because what I proposed is (and I am reapeating myself) to provide Metabase features right away (not in more 2 years or whatever it takes) by developing a PEAR-DB wrapper (driver class or whatever) that would interface to Metabase. Implementing Metabase features into PEAR-DB is not a realistic proposal because it would take an eternity.

So if I understand correctly this is the scheme you are proposing: 1. Write PEAR-DB wrapper for Metabase 2. Write Unified DBA, using the same API as in 1 3. Use it :-) Is that correct? It seems a good idea, as we get the option of using the features now if we need to, rather than later. Finally, please everyone, remember that for a lot of people on this list English isn't their first language, so messages might not come out quite how they mean them to - I know that if I had to write in French they certainly wouldn't! Cheers! Peter. -- Maple Design - http://www.mapledesign.co.uk