On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:16:07 -0300, Martín Marqués <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:01:31 -0700, chris# <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:02:25 -0400, till <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyway, my vote stands - remove code we don't need.
>> It's your vote, and you have every right. :)
>>> If distros wanna
>>> drag DB along it's probably because of dependencies in other software.
>> Could it not also be that keeping it lends itself to greater
> flexibility,
>> which, in turn
>> lends itself to easier "adoptability", or ease of use? Point being; if
>> having it
>> means that more people are likely to meet the _prerequisites_, then ppl
>> will
>> be more likely to adopt it. No? Also, really, how much overhead does
>> keeping
>> it really impose?
>
> I'm astonished. The PEAR::DB developers are telling you to change DB ->
> MDB2, so why do you think it's a good idea to use DB?
>
> I've used MDB2 for quite some time, and I think is more robust, and will
> get more features in the near future, something that DB will not.
Oh. I quite agree that MDB2 is more robust - no doubt about it. I would also
assert that many are of the philosophy that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Which will greatly account for those that are still using DB. There is still a
possible issue with MDB2 regarding file reads (attachments). While this
may be a "border case". Until the source of the issue has been _conclusively_
determined (which may in fact turn out to be an MDB2 version) DB should (must?)
remain. No?
Best wishes.
--Chris
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Service provided by hitOmeter.NET internet messaging!
.
_______________________________________________
List info: http://lists.roundcube.net/dev/
