"John Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have always wondered, how do you pronounce L0t3k?
actually "low-tech". most days i dream of woodworking <g>
> Seriously, if you are duplicating Metabase's effort, but in C,
> why not work with the Manuel Lemos then? This will fix any speed issues
> that Metabase has, and you will get his feedback.
the DB abstraction problem is a much larger one, which Manuel (and yourself)
have been struggling against with serious handicaps. for instance, one of
the reasons Manuel had to put so much work into Metabase is that the
original extension writers did not provide metadata which is readily
available from the database itself, or the metadata supplied is inconsistent
across back-ends.
the current database extensions were written as needed, so there was no
over-arching and unifiying design.
im attempting to consolidate and refactor the code in the existing
extensions into a framework which makes driver development much easier and a
lot more flexible. the upshot is that features can be implemented in the
core that
are immediately available across DB backends (like disconnected resultsets,
resultset serialization, and XML import/export which is nearly done). in
addition, features like connection management can be handled consistently
across supported backends.
> Many db abstraction classes I have seen are skewed towards
mysql/postgresql,
> so prove to be useless when migrating to mssql or oracle.
ive done quite a lot of legwork on this, and i think i have a framework
which accomodates everything from MySQL to Oracle. i did MySQL first because
1) the API is simple 2) i needed to quickly write a driver to test some
basic design decisions (navigation and bulk-fetching).
>Manuel really
> knows a lot about databases and can teach everyone a lot about these
issues.
>
> Or if you or anyone else would like to port ADOdb to a C extension,
> let me know.
i actually wrote to Manuel about this last summer, but he was (justifiably)
skeptical about the doability of the project and the prospects of its
adoption, given its scope and the fact that most people were comfortably
either using the base extensions, or something like Metabase, PEAR or ADODB.
instead of long discussions, i decided to wait until i had something
tangible to demonstrate. im very near to that point right now.
note that i dont think that Metabase or ADOdb will necessarily go away if
this extension works out. there are things that you and Manuel do that i
think belong in user-space and not in an extension. for instance your
sequence emulation code modifies the DB schema, which crosses the line of an
access layer. also Manuel's schema abstraction and transformation is another
example. i only really care at this point about data and metadata acess
abstraction. what it means though, is that your PHP code will be
considerably smaller and faster ( i think i can eliminate the need for at
least 65% of Metabase's code).
l0t3k
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
