This post should provide some perspective on the issue on hand: http://pooteeweet.org/blog/215
On 10/20/05, Jeremy Jongsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another consideration.... RoundCube is in *alpha*. MDB2 will likely be > fully released and stable by the time RoundCube is. > > -j > > On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 15:39 +0200, Jeff Nichols wrote: > > I don't really have many useful opinions to contribute to the database > > abstraction discussion, but I do personally disagree with the following > > statement: > > > > Script Head wrote: > > > One thing that should be considered befor switching to MDB2 is that it's > > > sill in beta. If RC was to reach a stable version, using a beta database > > > layer isn't the way to go. > > > > > > Using a beta framework is not necessarily a bad thing for a stable > > product. Think of it like this: > > > > Say 'Hypothetical DB Abstraction Framework' (HDBAF) is really really > > great, but they're still in Beta because they're trying to work out how > > to support 'Mainframe Huge ObscuOld Database'. Well, we don't really > > care about that database, so there's really no reason not to use HDBAF > > as it is. *As long as you test it for the functionality that you need.* > > > > Of course, you do have to worry about incompatible updates to the > > framework. But that's true of stable frameworks as well (it's just a > > word after all), and if you include the framework with your > > distribution, you can include any version you want. > > > > Just my outtake on beta frameworks and libraries. > > > > Jeff > > > > > -- > Jeremy Jongsma > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://jeremy.jongsma.org > > > > -- -- Praneet Kandula [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove TAKEMEOUT from email]
