On 27/09/17 10:17, Matteo Beccati wrote: > On 27/09/2017 11:00, Lester Caine wrote: >> The bigger question is - Should database specific extensions to PDO be >> allowed at all? The WHOLE base of PDO was that it would allow easy data >> management between DIFFERENT databases. This should be implemented in a >> way that mirrors blobs generically otherwise the generic database driver >> should be used since a switch to another PDO driver will fail. This >> should apply to any targeted extension to PDO, so anything that breaks >> the generic base data needs tidying up.
> That's a wrong assumption. PDO was born to allow quickly writing > database drivers, not as an abstraction layer that allows you to > seamlessly move from one another. I thought the same but I was corrected > by someone that was involved in the process. The whole base that PDO was allowed to be bundled was that it provided a clean DATA abstraction that could be relied on. The fact that it sidesteps the problems of SQL abstraction was pushed to one side as something that could be handled later. If each driver is now producing DIFFERENT sets of data then the whole generic base is broken. Why not simply move back to the generic drivers which are a LOT more advanced these days and rely on higher level abstraction layers where database transparency is an advantage. openBlob is a specific feature of SQLite so the decision to use it already rules out any other database. IN PDO access to it via the generic blob functions is the proper way forward so that a call for a blob gives a blob what ever the underlying datbase. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
