Re: unified db?

Lukas Smith wrote: > > Ok, so you still want to stick with PEAR DB as it is and you want to > continue to focus your efforts on PEAR DB as it currently is? Hi Lukas, I want to help you in the task of enhancing the API to evolve some different things Metabase could need. I'm refering to the discussion about it and the specs we could write. The rest of my time I will continue with the PEAR DB development yes, because many people is using PEAR DB (myself included). You know I have my own goals right now :-) > In terms of clean code: Is this just about formatting or do you think > that Metabase is flawed by its design from a programmers point of view. > > Formatting can be solved for "you" (since I would follow the PEAR CS) > but the latter cannot since my proposal will mean taking the Metabase > and how it is designed. Don't say only me, I guess if you could make the Metabase code more readable things like tracking problems or getting more contributions could be improved, that's all. > > What does this exactly mean for my proposed project? Nothing, here is only me :-). I previously said that I want to help you and want to see the progress of this task. > Will there be 2 DB > abstraction layers in PEAR? How do you and the rest of the core PEAR > developers feel about this? In my opinion is too early to launch this question because there is nothing done yet. Tomas V.V.Cox