> From: Dave Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 2007-03-19 14:29:59 CET > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: SV: [phpGroupWare-developers] adodb_lite > > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 14:16 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote: > > > > > From: Dave Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 2007-03-19 14:01:22 CET > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: RE: [phpGroupWare-developers] adodb_lite > > > > > > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 13:46 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Dave Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: 2007-03-19 13:42:24 CET > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Subject: Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] adodb_lite > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 13:34 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote: > > > > > > "adodb_lite" claims to be 30% faster than "adodb". > > > > > > How about adding this as an optional db-abstraction ? > > > > > > > > > > What is the difference in terms of functionality ? > > > > > > > > > Here is a list of supported/unsupported functions: > > > > http://adodblite.sourceforge.net/functions.php > > > > > > Thanks :) > > > > > > I had a quick look at the list. There is a couple of functions > > which I > > > like in ADOdb - namely Get{Insert,Update}SQL and Prepare. > > > > > > How would the option be implemented? > > > > > > > suggestion: > > a selectable variable > > $GLOBALS['phpgw_info']['server']['db_abstraction'] in header.inc.php > > > > the adodb_lite would reside in its one catalog > > <snip /> > > This ok, but we would have to make sure apps and the api aren't using > ADOdb calls. In this case we might as well just use adodb_lite. If > ADOdb is really a lot better, then we should stick with it, if not we > might as well switch. >
I agree - I don't know if adodb_lite is that much better - but this way we would have "one foot on the ground" - without breaking anything while testing the new library. Sigurd
_______________________________________________ phpGroupWare-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-developers
