Well there's also another point to separating the data layer.
Separating data all together allows to use any data source, not just a
database. For example, if the function calls and results were uniform
across the entire data layer, it could allow usage of flat files or
XML/RPC calls, not just a database. If a particular data "driver"
choses to use a database, it can be any libary, including MDB2 or
PEAR:DB or direct calls to that database.
On 10/20/05, Jeremy Jongsma <jeremy@jongsma.org> 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
jeremy@jongsma.org
http://jeremy.jongsma.org