Re: unified db?

Lukas Smith wrote: > > Hello, > > well discussion has died down > I know for sure that some people have already given up on the project of > merging Metabase and PEAR DB > I for one was defiantly not happy with the plan or the general results > from the discussion. > > Anyways I still think it would be a good thing (tm) > > I have submitted some code to Manuel which will be added next to a bunch > of other stuff in the next release, but Manuel has already made a new > release that adds and OO interface to Metabase > Are people getting happy with the structure of Metabase now? > > The next release will also add bulk fetching to improve performances. So > this will then be there also. > > Well I guess you all know what I am driving at: Are people still opposed > to pearify Metabase and make this the new PEAR DB abstraction layer? > If people are now ok with it: What changes or added features are needed > to not make the PEAR DB userbase unhappy? > 1) coding standard compliance > 2) .? How is the performance of Metabase's OO interface? Could you run the benchmark used previously to compare pear/metabase/adodb on it? In principle, I don't mind replacing the inner workings of DB. But I can not make a decision without more details. I'll go and familiarize myself with Metabase's new OO interface, and maybe you could post what you have in mind? There will probably be some API changes, which ones do you see coming? - Stig