On 5/20/07, Vincent Bernat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you prefer a separate backend for sqlite3 (so, no conversion needed) or do you prefer a backend that will use sqlite3 if available (or ask the user ?) and convert from sqlite to sqlite3 ?
My impression is that it should be a separate backend so that an administrator can choose between using sqlite or sqlite3 for their database. A separate option could then be added to allow upgrades between sqlite and sqlite3 if desired. I don't think that automatically upgrading databases to sqlite3 if it is available is a good idea, as it becomes hard to ensure that the package is depending on correct sqlite3 bindings for php, python, ruby, etc rather than plain old sqlite bindings. What I was trying to say originally is that regardless of how sqlite3 is handled my hope is that it doesn't require too much duplication of dbconfig-common code. Even if it is functionally a completely separate backend to sqlite it should still be able to share most of the exist sqlite code. Does that make sense? -- Matt Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mob +353 85 170 3177 www.mattb.net.nz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
