RE: [PEAR-DEV] unified db?

> 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 :-) OK, one thing wanted to note one more time: The resulting DB Abstraction layer will atleast have a wrapper to be PEAR DB compatible. It might even not need a wrapper at all (because I will try and convert all functions to how they are currently in PEAR DB). > > 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. Well to me this is an important question. One of the reasons to make this merger is to unify the efforts of the PHP community. If after the merger everything is the same as before but Metabase just had to change its API and now is part of PEAR (well this would be an improvement in my eyes - the question is just if the trouble is worth it) it might not be worth it to go through all that trouble. See what I mean? If in the end we still do not have a merger then there will be little gain in running through thousands of lines of code. Also I think this would be a highly confusing situation for the users. So lets get one of those famous (+1/-1) votes going. Of course if the merged Metabase turns out to be crap it's a whole new story. But we should at least decide on the aim? Best regards, Lukas Smith smith@dybnet.de _______________________________ DybNet Internet Solutions GbR Alt Moabit 89 10559 Berlin Germany Tel. : +49 30 83 22 50 00 Fax : +49 30 83 22 50 07 www.dybnet.de info@dybnet.de _______________________________ > -----Original Message----- > From: cox@idecnet.com [mailto:cox@idecnet.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 2:07 AM > To: pear-dev@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PEAR-DEV] 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 > > -- > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, e-mail: pear-dev-unsubscribe@lists.php.net > For additional commands, e-mail: pear-dev-help@lists.php.net > To contact the list administrators, e-mail: php-list-admin@lists.php.net