Re: [PECL-DEV] New extension: chdb

Does it mean that chdb supports a superset of Hidef?  As I read from chdb,
.ini storage is not an issue

$data = array(
        'key1' => 'value1',
        'key2' => 'value2',
        // ...
  );
chdb_create('data.chdb', $data);

or

$data = fetchArray('constants.ini');
chdb_create('data.chdb', $data);

is just similar. fetchArray() can be implemented in pure PHP, without the
need of a C extension.

chdb APIs make me think that it supports more things than what hidef is
designed to do?

Is it correct?

On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Pierre Joye <[email protected]> wrote:

> hi Lorenzo,
>
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Lorenzo Castelli <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 22:22 +0200, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> Hidef idea is to make contants cost free, no runtime initialization.
> That's its primary goal.
>
> The constants are stored in a simple ini file, that's the difference
> with your extension. A backend based design would allow both a DB or
> whatever else we could imagine while having the benefits of hidef's
> primary goal. It will also avoids to have one extension per storage.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Pierre
>
> @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
>
> --
> PECL development discussion Mailing List (http://pecl.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>


-- 
Spica Framework: http://code.google.com/p/spica
http://www.twitter.com/pcdinh
http://groups.google.com/group/phpvietnam