On Wednesday 06 July 2005 06:39 am, Maxim Sloyko wrote: > But this is not the point. The point was that usage of some file with > passwords by *DEFAULT* is not the way to go, IMHO. It raises more > problems than it solves.
To tack onto that, IMO it would make more sense if the password situation were handled by the DBD:: end, say via inclusion of support for the various dot files that every DB seems to love (.mysql at least comes to mind, pretty sure there is a postgres equiv, etc.). Otherwise your opening DBI up to a can of worms if its being relied on to store the password in any encrypted fashion when its real purpose is to provide the foundation layer. That could be a lack of coffee in my diet today talking though.
