Re: general questions

Hello, Peter Bowyer wrote: > > At 04:54 AM 12/1/01 -0200, Manuel Lemos wrote: > >I think you miss the point of the whole vision, but I will try to > >explain it again. If all goes well, in the end you only have PEAR-DB. My > >proposal is to wrap Metabase around PEAR-DB API. PEAR-DB API will be > >enhanced to provide an interface for Metabase features that PEAR-DB does > >not offer yet. If all goes well, Metabase API functions can be ported to > >C taking whatever it takes to do it, but until that is done you can > >already benefit of Metabase features with a PEAR-DB API today. > > May I try to put across how I see this vision. This is my personal take on > the project, may or may not reflect other people's views. > > We should have a unified database abstraction API (the PEAR-DB API + > extras), which is basically what I think Manuel was proposing in the first > place by wrapping Metabase. > > This has the following advantages: > - I can swop database abstraction layers easily. If I need something fast > then I can use ADODB. If I need a portable application then I can use > Metabase. And for normal things I'll use the current PEAR-DB. And _all_ > this works from one API - no more recoding when I realise that the current I am not sure if I got you right, but what I am proposing is not to make PEAR-DB an interface for one or more of other database abstraction layers. What I am proposing is to provide PEAR-DB users all Metabase features right away without having them to drop PEAR-DB. Metabase provides PEAR-DB features and more. For the features that Metabase provides and PEAR-DB does, PEAR-DB will be extended so its users will be able to benefit from those features. > DBA doesn't have a feature I want. This means that we don't have to argue > over which features should go into the layer for the time being - if I Yes, because those features are the same as PEAR-DB provides now plus what Metabase offers in addition. > don't like the current one I can move. And eventually (I hope) we'll get > down to one layer :-) > Manuel, another thing I'd like to see is the schema management of Metabase > become a stand-alone program (XML2SQL?) which could go in PEAR(?), as I > think this is one of the most useful features of Metabase, and regardless > of which DBA I use I'd still like to use this :-) The problem is that I am not finding enough time to do what was suggested right away. I am very committed to make a first public release of MetaL this month. Also, my 2 months old sun takes a lot of my free time. These are priority issues for me. Unfortunately I see myself spending a lot of time in this mailing list try to explain the same things over and over againg. It would help if people would be more willing to understand that what I am suggesting is for the benefit of PHP and its users, and stop seeing my proposal and personal crusade that threats their views or wishes. I have been throughly patient in trying to answer the same objections over and over again, but to do that, sometimes it takes me 3 hours to compose lengthy messages that people does not seem to be making a good effort to understand my good intentions. Instead, they bounce them with the same questions and objections. I am sorry, but I can't afford spending 3 hours to answer to messages of people that is not willing to be understanding. If things do not improve, I might just give up the whole idea which seems the intention of some that seem to be having a boycotting attitude from the beginning. At least those would be happy. Regards, Manuel Lemos