On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:16:07 -0300, Martín Marqués martin@marquesminen.com.ar wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:01:31 -0700, chris# chris#@codewarehouse.NET wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:02:25 -0400, till klimpong@gmail.com 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/