Re: MDB Questions - switching to MDB, failover and soon...

Sorry if I jumped to a conclusion without knowing all the facts. I'm certainly not trying to be negative about DB_DataObject as we have used it successfully for years. It's always been a great package. I think what I'm hearing, and please correct me if I am wrong, that DB_DataObject2 is a rewrite for PHP5 only and is in the process of being developed. Can I assume that since Lukas isn't aware of how certain parts of the code will be structured in DB_DataObject2 that the architecture hasn't been fully discussed on the list? If this is the case (and I am purely speculating) then wouldn't it make sense to do so before too much more development happens? Again, I'm guessing it is being rewritten, and if so, IMHO does it make sense to take a step back and look over the architecture carefully before-hand? I don't want to lie to anyone. I have a selfish agenda and that is simply that we use DB_DataObject and I hope to see that DB_DataObject2 achieves even more. Although I'm not usually a code contributor I wouldn't mind commenting and contributing to design discussions, if its welcome. Many thanks, Matt. On 7/17/06, Lukas Smith <lsmith@php.net> wrote:

Matt Friedman wrote: It's surprising to hear that the new version won't use a driver approach. Then I could use DB, MDB, PDO, or another, or even roll my own. The author should consider how to structure the code to achieve this architecture. Especially since it is php5, which supports those types of oop patterns better than php4. Let me clarify my statements. All I have said is how I want the code structured compared to how the code is structured at the moment. Since DB lacks datatype abstraction Alan had to add this into DB_DataObject. This IMHO led to issues in the design. I prefer having the datatype (and some other abstraction aspects) inside the DBAL and not inside the ORM. I was not commenting on code for DB_DataObject2 that I have not seen yet. regards, Lukas

-- -- Matt Friedman