Bart Lateur [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:01:05 +0000, Tim Bunce wrote: > > >On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 01:25:03AM +0000, Tim Bunce wrote: > >> Here's what I'm thinking, and developing, at the moment... > >> [Please read and think about it all before commenting] > > > >Umm, a stunned silence, apathy, confusion, new year hang-over? > > > >Should I just take the silence as general acceptance that it's a good idea? > > I can't speak for everybody, but... > > I've read your proposal, and so far, it still feels a bit alien to me. I > can't understand half of what you're saying. But from what I do gather, > it should make customised (and optimised) generic database interfaces > easier. Whatever that may mean...
I agree with Bart - from what I understand of it(maybe 1/2 as Bart said), it sounds like a good idea. I'm probably in the minority, but I haven't subclassed the DBI.pm yet, so most of what Tim said goes right over my head. Tim, I think you tried to describe a few examples of the new ideas, but those examples weren't in-depth enough to give me a real feel for what I'll be able to do with, or how I might benefit from, the proposed enhancements. I'm not trying to be a pain in the a__, but I would really appreciate a "primer" on "How Subclassing DBI.pm can benefit you" directed at people who haven't subclassed the DBI.pm before. Does something like this already exist? If I understood it and knew more about it, I might have more input on how much the proposed enhancements make sense(or not). -- Hardy Merrill Mission Critical Linux, Inc. http://www.missioncriticallinux.com
