On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, l0t3k wrote: > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but can you explain how this is better > > than what we have now? > the power of abstraction <g>
Yes, but abstraction is not always necessary, wouldn't you agree? > i'll give you an example of why i want it. im working on resultset caching > in a DB astraction layer, and im giving the user the option of saving to XML > or a more compact format. i'd like to give the user options as to how and > where the data is stored. if the user has file system access and wants to do > it that way, then fine. if however, they want to use the session mechanism > and stick it into a zval string, then its gravy. the point is to allow for > flexibility. > in any case, its a pain to have to write two sets of code to write to a > 'proper' stream (file or sockets) , and to write another set of routines to > store to a string. with a unified approach, you get the flexibility you need > all for free. Hmm, well, there is no such thing as a free lunch.. :) -Andrei * "Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon." -- Alan Perlis * -- PHP Development 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]
