Re: unified db?

Lukas Smith wrote: > > Well we should hold off until the next release for benchmarks because > the next release will include bulk fetching as was mentioned in the > release information of the last metabase release (actually one function > call will be able to send the query, fetch the results, and convert any > of the returned data if needed - of course this can also be done step by > step). > > There will be other stuff in there as well but Manuel is the best person > to ask for this. But let's hold off with discussing these new features > until the next release because I know otherwise this thread will > degenerate into a flame war again. I think with the next release > Metabase should have overcome pretty much all of the (major) criticism. > > I was mainly looking for comments on the new OO interface. I want to > hear if people think that this is the direction where they can deal with > Metabase forming the basis for the new DB abstraction layer. The API is what's important to me and to people using DB. If we can keep the API but make it "powered by Metabase", that's fine with me. > If yes I will try and make some time available to pearify Metabase after > the next release. I will definitively not want to work on something that > will start off with fewer features than Metabase. We have actually > already started our port to Metabase in December in my company so right > now I have 2 abstraction layers in my system (Metabase and our old > proprietary db wrapper) and I want to clean this situation up ASAP (with > the new Metabase or a pearified Metabase). > > If not then I will focus any future development on Metabase. Of course > this will not prevent of taking up whatever merging whatever opensource > DB abstraction layer they see fit to form the basis of a full featured > DB abstraction layer I'm positive to this, let's hear it from other DB contributors. Tomas? - Stig