On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:46:24 -0800, Dan Kalowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is a technical reason to avoid it if you've listened to any of my > past efforts to move uODBC forward in time.
No offense Dan, but ext/odbc has been idle for more than a year; please don't take it personally when I state that this is not really moving forward in time. > If it is not a driver > manager, it moves the uODBC further to being a driver manager... > something I have been trying to avoid. OK, but this is a trivial patch. > I am against continuing the > process of directly linking into database specific drivers, for various > reasons but mostly to cut down on the issues of lack of support. There is no support issue in this case. (think about it: the vendor supplied the patch in the first place) > You can cite all the rhetoric you want about slowing down the execution > time you want. I didn't, and if you cared to notice, I was actually "on your side" when I first joined the thread. I evaluated the patch (have you?) and discovered that it is a couple of lines of configure script and a couple of lines of C code to sort out the DSN. > I don't buy it, nor do I have the time or resources to > continue in the "we'll support everything" manner we're running in. Like I said, we're hardly "running" if the code has been idle for a year. I'll bet you've spent (or will spend) more time arguing on this thread than you've spent supporting odbc over this last year--again, nothing personal--but moaning about support costs for a trivial patch is a waste of time. The fact of the matter is that the patch has no negative impact while providing more functionality to PHP. --Wez. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
