On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 06:43:39PM +0200, Juerd wrote: > Jeffrey W. Baker skribis 2005-07-09 11:27 (-0700): > > > Oh drat - not the DBI connection string discussion again!
Relax. DSN strings are not going away. > > There are certainly database-specific things to be worked around. An > > improvement to the current DSN scheme would be a URI, as discussed in > > the past. The leading dbi: on every DSN is redundant, so a URI might > > look like this: > > driver://user:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port/instance > > I think URIs are the right way to go, and one of the very few things PHP > (though be it with PEAR) did right. > > http://pear.php.net/manual/en/package.database.db.intro-dsn.php And they possibly copied the idea from JDBC. Note that the DBIs DSNs are already URIs in as much as the format is <scheme>:<scheme-specific-part> (with the exception of no formal encoding/escaping rules, but they wouldn't make much difference in practice.) > It would be fun if we could just steal that design and build on top of > it, for compatibility, but also because other people have already > thought about it and proven that it works. It's not exactly complicated. DSNs for DBI v2 are very likely to be more formally specified as URIs. Tim.
