Re: New extension: chdb

Does it mean that chdb supports a superset of Hidef? As I read from chdb, .ini storage is not an issue $data = array( 'key1' => 'value1', 'key2' => 'value2', // ... ); chdb_create('data.chdb', $data); or $data = fetchArray('constants.ini'); chdb_create('data.chdb', $data); is just similar. fetchArray() can be implemented in pure PHP, without the need of a C extension. chdb APIs make me think that it supports more things than what hidef is designed to do? Is it correct? On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: > hi Lorenzo, > > On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Lorenzo Castelli <lorenzo@hyves.nl> wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 22:22 +0200, Pierre Joye wrote: > > Hidef idea is to make contants cost free, no runtime initialization. > That's its primary goal. > > The constants are stored in a simple ini file, that's the difference > with your extension. A backend based design would allow both a DB or > whatever else we could imagine while having the benefits of hidef's > primary goal. It will also avoids to have one extension per storage. > > Cheers, > -- > Pierre > > @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | > http://www.libgd.org > > -- > PECL development discussion Mailing List (http://pecl.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- Spica Framework: http://code.google.com/p/spica http://www.twitter.com/pcdinh http://groups.google.com/group/phpvietnam