On Wednesday 21 November 2001 16:24, Joao Prado Maia wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Martin Jansen wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:19:44 -0500 (EST), Joao Prado Maia wrote:
> > >If PEAR::DB is not abstracting the database what is the purpose of
> > > such a library ?
> >
> > To ease the life of lot's of programmers.
> I probably used a bad choice of words. What I really meant was: What
> is the objective of PEAR::DB as a database abstraction library ? To
> abstract as much as possible like Metabase already does, or to
> provide a unified API to databases and leave the implementation
> related to database specific to the user himself ?
> It's okay to choose the latter, but I believe we should have a unique
> position on something like this, so we know what we are working for.
> A statement like this will be very helpful when people come to the
> mailing list saying that PEAR::DB doesn't abstract LOB's or any other
> exotic feature, as we can just reply "that's not our objective".

Personally I don't see the idea or position should be so strict. PEAR 
DB provides the things the users requested. I think there are no more 
things because there isn't a real need for them in common environment. 

About the discussion if PEAR DB abstracts the database or the API, what 
can I tell you, I use PEAR DB with Postgres, Mysql, ODBC (Navision, MS 
SQL, Access) with almost no portability problems. Only needs you to do 
the SQL work in a very standar way and sometimes use PHP code for some 

If someone comes here saying: "hey I implemented this exotic feature 
for PEAR DB" I don't see the reason for dropping it only bacause is 
"not the objective". The only objective I see is that it has to be 
useful for the developers.

Tomas V.V.Cox

PHP Database Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to