Re: PHPLib and Pear merge

[burak dayioglu <dayioglu@metu.edu.tr>] > On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Thomas Fromm wrote: > > a fast, but bad designed abstraction or > > a slow, but with good design and usage? > > As being someone with years of industry experience I would go for the > second. With Moore's Law and others hardware speedup is so fast that > no one should be in worry for processing speed. (Slow today? Wait two > months more for much faster execution) I do not think that phplib was > working extremely speedy when it first came out. > > > i know both of the db abstractions, and i must say, the phplib abstraction > > has very big holes in points of needed features (e.g. transactions). > > ( everybody knows the problems or missed possibilities of phplib, who wrote > > code which is not only so basic like 'select a from b' ) > > I don't want to be rude and hurt people but I have had written to the list > a few times about pgsql transactions not to be working just by FALSE'ing > autocommit but no answer came out. Uhm, I believe I have fixed the pgsql transactions now. I didn't announce it very loudly though. Did you test the latest CVS? > > PS: i want to spent my time to PEAR::DB and want to help design and code if > > there is really an interest making PEAR::DB really abstract, not only for > > mysql or postgres... > > Unfortunately, supporting PEAR and improving it is pretty > difficult for > us the late-comers. I am still having trouble with existing classes (no or > too-little documentation) so if there were some more documentation it > would have been far easy to contribute. We're working on it. There's be a whole PEAR section in the manual now (alongside "Language" and "Function Reference"). - Stig -- Stig Sæther Bakken <ssb@fast.no> Fast Search & Transfer ASA, Trondheim, Norway