RE: [PEAR-DEV] pearifying Metabase (was: [PEAR-DEV] New Metabase Aniversary release)

Well it's good that you are voicing your opinions. It would be helpful to not always have only 2-3 people talk and the rest listing and those 2-3 people taking turns every time the topic comes up. Oki doki. As far as I know there are not to be packages in PEAR that do the same things only slightly different. PEAR Metabase (as will probably be the simplest to call a pearified Metabase for now) will basically have ALL the functionality of PEAR DB. And on top a ton of additional features. The implementation will be different here and there, but the performance will be mostly on par. There are some radically different approaches in the various template engines (some "pre-compiling", some giving the template designer control structures and some don't). So there is definitely room for those different template engines. Using different template engines is quite possible while different DB abstraction layers will not. Each Db abstraction layer will take different approaches to simulate missing features in one DB. This will all end up in the DB. Different templates for the different template engines can be kept seperated much easier imho. Actually, to get back to Db abstraction layers, I could envision something like a DB Abstraction layer that is basically a Querybuilder. Something like this would take have radically different approach (acutally I was just recently talking to Manuel about this). Metabase is a good code base. It is not ugly but does follow a different formatting method (its not my favorite either). The API used to be a bit odd for the OO people (which includes me) and I never liked the long Function names. But its not like we are sacrificing clean code for functionality here. Anyways the formatting problem will be cleared up in the pearifying process. So will the function names. And all the features of PEAR DB will be there as well. I would really like to get this cleared up once and for all. So please could we move to get a vote? (I wonder why all the other potential contributors get vots going so fast ;) and this issue seems to never get any clear answers) So PEAR community ... please either shot this project down cleanly or lets get the ball rolling. I can deal with Metabase. I do not _need_ a pearified Metabase. I think it will help PHP greatly. I think it will also help me - a PHP user - over the long run because more of the efforts going into DB abstraction will be focused on the resulting package (I really like that work on the PEAR DB LDAP driver to be done towards a PEAR DB that is as feature rich as Metabase). On the other hand there are other things I could be doing (like writing a LDAP driver for Metabase). 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 _______________________________