On Fri 09 Jul 2004 06:02, Dean Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Darren Duncan wrote:
At 12:33 AM +0200 7/9/04, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
Perhaps as a middle ground, I can suggest that DBI v2 will support Perl
5.6 initially, but that support will be considered deprecated. This way,
5.6
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 01:09:29PM +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Tim Bunce wrote:
And it wasn't easy. Withdrawing support for 5.6 anytime soon would
be _much_ harder. Coupling that with a major change in the DBI that
may require some application code changes (however small and rare)
just
Tim Bunce wrote:
As I've said previously, DBI v2.0 is mainly about changes to the DBI-DBD
interface.
Makes no difference, IMO. DBD authors have the same choice to stick with v1
or not.
On Fri 09 Jul 2004 14:10, Tim Bunce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 01:09:29PM +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Tim Bunce wrote:
And it wasn't easy. Withdrawing support for 5.6 anytime soon would
be _much_ harder. Coupling that with a major change in the DBI that
may
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 03:41:32PM +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Tim Bunce wrote:
As I've said previously, DBI v2.0 is mainly about changes to the DBI-DBD
interface.
Makes no difference, IMO. DBD authors have the same choice to stick with v1
or not.
True. And DBD authors also have a
At 6:16 PM +0100 7/9/04, Tim Bunce wrote:
Why not create a new method call, as you (IMHO) should have done in 1.38
The change of behaviour in the tables () method is a
straightforward nightmare
for me. Adding those quotations broke about all my applications.
Some of mine too. But quotes are
At 8:46 PM +0200 7/9/04, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
If it would have been up to me to set the standards and defenintions, I would
*_NEVER_* ever have allowed blanks^wnon-word characters in table(space)- and
field- names.
I have just had the luck^wawful experience of having to convert a M$Access DB
to
On Thu 08 Jul 2004 19:47, Tim Bunce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 10:39:37AM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
My question for today is whether you think it is reasonable for DBI
v2, which is already expected to break a few things, to simply
require 5.8.x at the outset, or
At 12:33 AM +0200 7/9/04, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
You won't be leaving them behind. They still have DBI-1.xx
FWIW as per customer request, I am depending on 5.8.4 and up since two weeks.
You can imagine that's a little bit earlier than I planned. And it's not UTF-8
that makes me need 5.8.4
That's
Darren Duncan wrote:
At 12:33 AM +0200 7/9/04, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
You won't be leaving them behind. They still have DBI-1.xx
FWIW as per customer request, I am depending on 5.8.4 and up since two
weeks.
You can imagine that's a little bit earlier than I planned. And it's
not UTF-8
that makes
10 matches
Mail list logo
