Re: [PHP-PEAR] PHPLib and Pear merge

[burak dayioglu <[email protected]>]
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Thomas Fromm wrote:
> > a fast, but bad designed abstraction or
> > a slow, but with good design and usage?
> 
> As being someone with years of industry experience I would go for the
> second. With Moore's Law and others hardware speedup is so fast that
> no one should be in worry for processing speed. (Slow today? Wait two
> months more for much faster execution) I do not think that phplib was
> working extremely speedy when it first came out.
> 
> > i know both of the db abstractions, and i must say, the phplib abstraction 
> > has very big holes in points of needed features (e.g. transactions).
> > ( everybody knows the problems or missed possibilities of phplib, who wrote 
> > code which is not only so basic like 'select a from b' )
> 
> I don't want to be rude and hurt people but I have had written to the list
> a few times about pgsql transactions not to be working just by FALSE'ing
> autocommit but no answer came out.

Uhm, I believe I have fixed the pgsql transactions now.  I didn't
announce it very loudly though.  Did you test the latest CVS?

> > PS: i want to spent my time to PEAR::DB and want to help design and code if 
> > there is really an interest making PEAR::DB really abstract, not only for 
> > mysql or postgres...
> 
> Unfortunately, `supporting` PEAR and improving it is pretty difficult for
> us the late-comers. I am still having trouble with existing classes (no or
> too-little documentation) so if there were some more documentation it
> would have been far easy to contribute.

We're working on it.  There's be a whole PEAR section in the manual
now (alongside "Language" and "Function Reference").

 - Stig

-- 
  Stig Sæther Bakken <[email protected]>
  Fast Search & Transfer ASA, Trondheim, Norway