Re: Re: [metabase-dev] RE: [PEAR-DEV] New Metabase Aniversary release

Hello, Björn Schotte wrote: > > * Manuel Lemos wrote: > > > No fear, Manuel. I didn't say that Metabase should not > > > be PEARified. > > You did not seem to agree to have only one database abstraction package > > in PEAR either. > > If you would have read my e-mails carefully, you would have > the answer. I don't think it's a good idea to follow the > dictatorial way of "There's only place for the one and only > DB abstraction layer". Nobdoy is dictating anything, it is a proposal that people that sees the benefits of its value will agree. > But, as I said, it's only *my* opinion. > > > One point that I need to make clear is that I definetely did not make > > that proposal because I developed Metabase, but rather because PHP can > > only benefit from having only one officially advertised database > > abstraction package like Java for JDBC. > > Why can it only benefit from having only one DB abstraction > package? Why can't it also benefit if there are many DB > abstraction packages? If you are still asking by now, that could be because nobody was able to explain the benefits of the proposal so that it was clear to you and everybody else that is seems to be opposing to the idea. So let me try explaining in a clearer way. If you only have one abstraction package that (almost) everybody uses, everybody will be able to share the database components written in PHP using that database abstraction package. The way it is right now, PEAR-DB users can't share database components developed by Metabase users, ADO-DB users, PHPlib users, etc... This is why for Perl users to stick only to DBI, Java JDBC, Python Python-DB, Windows languages ODBC/ADO, etc... There are other benefits, but do you reckon the main benefit of having only one database abstraction package now? Regards, Manuel Lemos