On Thursday 03 January 2002 11:08 pm, Zak Greant wrote:
Why?
Because not everyone wants to use *(#$ing objects in a simple script!
No one will be forced to use the wrapper! :)
Whilst this is true, and I know that you are thoughtful and conciencious
enough to make sure that any new
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 09:24:33AM +, Phil Driscoll wrote :
On Thursday 03 January 2002 11:08 pm, Zak Greant wrote:
Why?
Because not everyone wants to use *(#$ing objects in a simple script!
No one will be forced to use the wrapper! :)
Whilst this is true, and I know that
At 10:37 AM 1/4/2002 +0100, Markus Fischer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 09:24:33AM +, Phil Driscoll wrote :
On Thursday 03 January 2002 11:08 pm, Zak Greant wrote:
Why?
Because not everyone wants to use *(#$ing objects in a simple script!
No one will be forced to use
The important thing is to keep at least the same level of functionality
for procedural coding
This was the entire concern raised about too much OOP form what I
gather.
There was also the concern raised that your design will be heavily
influenced by the possibilities offered by the ZE1, where as
Hello,
If everybody had _read_ Zak's initial proposal, they should have noticed
that he wanted to ADD an OO interface:
Create an OO-based wrapper for the MySQL extension.
Then there would would not have been an useless and endless thread.
My guess that everybody can do more useful things
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
If everybody had _read_ Zak's initial proposal, they should have noticed
that he wanted to ADD an OO interface:
Create an OO-based wrapper for the MySQL extension.
Then there would would not have been an useless and endless thread.
Hi,
Create an OO-based wrapper for the MySQL extension.
Then there would would not have been an useless and endless thread.
My guess that everybody can do more useful things with their time.
using OO or a procedural approach to solve a problem is a question of
religion (i.e. personal
Hello All,
Monty has a series of proposed changes and updates to the MySQL extension
(along with a few ideas of mine that we have discussed) that I would like to
present to the dev list for feedback and review.
Synopsis of Proposed Changes
Update the PHP built-in
Zak Greant wrote:
Update the PHP built-in MySQL library to support MySQL 4.0.1
+1
Create an OO-based wrapper for the MySQL extension.
Sounds cool :-)
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/
Did I help you? Consider a gift:
This looks really great.
just let us know if you need any help!
James
-Original Message-
From: Zak Greant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 8:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Proposed updates and extensions
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 01:19:03AM -0700, Zak Greant wrote :
The major benefits of the wrapper would be:
- Small and simple API. The number of functions would drop from 41 to
around 12.
But you know you just can't remove the existing functions.
--
Please always Cc to me when
On 2002-3-01 02:01, Markus Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 01:19:03AM -0700, Zak Greant wrote :
The major benefits of the wrapper would be:
- Small and simple API. The number of functions would drop from 41 to
around 12.
But you know you just can't remove the existing
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 02:01:16AM -0700, Zak Greant wrote :
On 2002-3-01 02:01, Markus Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 01:19:03AM -0700, Zak Greant wrote :
The major benefits of the wrapper would be:
- Small and simple API. The number of functions would drop from 41 to
Create an OO-based wrapper for the MySQL extension. The wrapper would
provide the user with access to all of a database's information without
Yeah, lets re-invent PEAR:DB :)
Such things are already on the ToDo list for PEAR::DB.
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To
On 2002-3-01 02:43, Alexander Merz wrote:
Create an OO-based wrapper for the MySQL extension. The wrapper would
provide the user with access to all of a database's information without
Yeah, lets re-invent PEAR:DB :)
Such things are already on the ToDo list for PEAR::DB.
What makes
PROTECTED]
___
-Original Message-
From: Zak Greant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Proposed updates and extensions to the MySQL
extension
Hello All
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 11:41 AM
To: Alexander Merz; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposed updates and extensions to the MySQL
extension
On 2002-3-01 02:43, Alexander Merz wrote:
Create an OO-based wrapper for the MySQL extension. The wrapper
On 2002-3-01 03:39, Lukas Smith wrote:
Well PHP and MySQL are a very popular combo .. but I do not see a point
in separating the API's even further ... DB API's are a major concern
for myself right now too
It would be really nice to work more in the direction of unifying all of
the API's on
Sounds good to me except for the OO wrappers.
Do we already have OO wrappers to anything else not in user land? - if so
then I'm probably too late to make the point, but to me such a thing feels
'all wrong' and 'not php'. I'm particularly concerned that we don't create
functionality which is
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 02:06:23PM +, Phil Driscoll wrote :
Sounds good to me except for the OO wrappers.
Do we already have OO wrappers to anything else not in user land? - if so
then I'm probably too late to make the point, but to me such a thing feels
'all wrong' and 'not php'.
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Zak Greant wrote:
On 2002-3-01 03:39, Lukas Smith wrote:
Well PHP and MySQL are a very popular combo .. but I do not see a point
in separating the API's even further ... DB API's are a major concern
for myself right now too
It would be really nice to work more in
On Thursday 03 January 2002 2:18 pm, Markus Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 02:06:23PM +, Phil Driscoll wrote :
Sounds good to me except for the OO wrappers.
Do we already have OO wrappers to anything else not in user land? - if so
then I'm probably too late to make the point,
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 02:39:02PM +, Phil Driscoll wrote :
On Thursday 03 January 2002 2:18 pm, Markus Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 02:06:23PM +, Phil Driscoll wrote :
Sounds good to me except for the OO wrappers.
Do we already have OO wrappers to anything else not
From: Joao Prado Maia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
My personal opinion is that the OOP layer idea is pretty bad. Instead
of
having 7 or 8 set of functions to learn, now the newbie will have 8
set of
functions / APIs. The idea might sound very sexy and everything, but
the
real problem is that
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 03:49:48PM +0100, Lukas Smith wrote :
From: Joao Prado Maia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
My personal opinion is that the OOP layer idea is pretty bad. Instead
of
having 7 or 8 set of functions to learn, now the newbie will have 8
set of
functions / APIs. The
Markus Fischer wrote:
Yes I also see a danger there.
Procedural is still the method choosen by most newbies and also used a
lot of established (php) professionals.
So what ever we do, we should always provide atleast the same level of
functionality without the OO interface
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Markus Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 03:49:48PM +0100, Lukas Smith wrote :
From: Joao Prado Maia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
My personal opinion is that the OOP layer idea is pretty bad. Instead
of
having 7 or 8 set of functions to learn, now the newbie
From: Markus Fischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
What tells you that? I see more OO code then procedureal when
I browser through misc. sources.
And this code is written by newbies?
I am not saying that procedural is the most used method by php experts
.. but it is used by php experts
** Reply to note from Markus Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu, 3 Jan 2002
15:18:16 +0100
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 02:06:23PM +, Phil Driscoll wrote :
Sounds good to me except for the OO wrappers.
Do we already have OO wrappers to anything else not in user land? - if so
then I'm
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:31:51AM -0500, Joao Prado Maia wrote :
I repeat once again, why not work with Stig and the rest of the PEAR-DEV
guys on this new redesigned PEAR::DB (or whatever it ends up being called)
so in the near future we can then think of doing a C port of it ?
I
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:35:33AM -0500, Craig Morrison wrote :
Let's not break that now.
Nothing will be broken.
Besides, I encounter classes most of the time when it comes
to reuseable components. Why do you think are all things
encapsulated in classes in PEAR? And outside
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 01:44:38PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
** Reply to note from Markus Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu, 3 Jan 2002
15:18:16 +0100
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 02:06:23PM +, Phil Driscoll wrote :
Sounds good to me except for the OO wrappers.
Do we
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Markus Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:31:51AM -0500, Joao Prado Maia wrote :
I repeat once again, why not work with Stig and the rest of the PEAR-DEV
guys on this new redesigned PEAR::DB (or whatever it ends up being called)
so in the near future we can
On 2002-3-01 07:32, Joao Prado Maia wrote:
[cut]
My personal opinion is that the OOP layer idea is pretty bad. Instead of
having 7 or 8 set of functions to learn, now the newbie will have 8 set
of functions / APIs. The idea might sound very sexy and everything, but
the real problem is that
On 2002-3-01 07:06, Phil Driscoll wrote:
Sounds good to me except for the OO wrappers.
Do we already have OO wrappers to anything else not in user land? - if so
then I'm probably too late to make the point, but to me such a thing
feels 'all wrong' and 'not php'. I'm particularly concerned
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:43:09PM -0500, Joao Prado Maia wrote :
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Markus Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:31:51AM -0500, Joao Prado Maia wrote :
I repeat once again, why not work with Stig and the rest of the PEAR-DEV
guys on this new redesigned PEAR::DB
On 2002-3-01 11:29, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Zak,
You will probably be better off waiting for the ZE2's new object
overloading facilities. It will hopefully be easier to write and will
allow you to do some things which you can't do today.
If you write it for ZE1 your extension's API might look
On 2002-3-01 06:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
** Reply to note from Markus Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu, 3
Jan 2002 15:18:16 +0100
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 02:06:23PM +, Phil Driscoll wrote :
Sounds good to me except for the OO wrappers.
Do we already have OO wrappers to anything
On 2002-3-01 15:43, Joao Prado Maia wrote:
So ? I didn't see any C code from Zak either. If all we are doing right
now is speculating on the creation of a PHP based 'prototype' of this
MySQL-only abstraction thing, why is it more interesting than a existing
package like PEAR::DB ?
Talk is
Addressed to: Markus Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** Reply to note from Markus Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu, 3 Jan 2002
22:00:27 +0100
Because not everyone wants to use *(#$ing objects in a simple script!
Why?
Count me as one of the people who would not be
40 matches
Mail list logo