Re: DB_Binary Draft

["yavo" <yavo@itena.com.cy>] > "Jon Parise" <jon@csh.rit.edu> wrote in message > news:20010316195449.A384@csh.rit.edu... > > I haven't had a really good look at your classes, but I wonder why you > > don't merge this new functionality with the existing DB class > > hierarchy. Is there a reason why you're defining a new set of classes > > for storing binary files? > > No no reason it just seemed to make sence at the time. I agree with you but > wouldn't PEAR::DB beacome too overbloated it we started adding all types of > new functionality to it. I've already seen people complaining that it's too > big. Don't worry about that, the biggest parts will be recoded to C to speed things up. I don't see why binary data should be treated different than other data. The prepare/execute methods already have some BLOB support in the syntax (you can use "&" instead of "?" to read data from a file). - Stig -- Stig Sæther Bakken <ssb@fast.no> Fast Search & Transfer ASA, Trondheim, Norway