RE: SV: [phpGroupWare-developers] adodb_lite

[Sigurd Nes]

> From: Dave Hall address@hidden
> Sent: 2007-03-19 14:29:59 CET
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: SV: [phpGroupWare-developers] adodb_lite
> 
> On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 14:16 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Dave Hall address@hidden
> > > Sent: 2007-03-19 14:01:22 CET
> > > To: address@hidden
> > > Subject: RE: [phpGroupWare-developers] adodb_lite
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 13:46 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > From: Dave Hall address@hidden
> > > > > Sent: 2007-03-19 13:42:24 CET
> > > > > To: address@hidden
> > > > > Subject: Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] adodb_lite
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 13:34 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote:
> > > > > > "adodb_lite" claims to be 30% faster than "adodb".
> > > > > > How about adding this as an optional db-abstraction ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > What is the difference in terms of functionality ?
> > > > > 
> > > > Here is a list of supported/unsupported functions:
> > > > http://adodblite.sourceforge.net/functions.php
> > > 
> > > Thanks :)
> > > 
> > > I had a quick look at the list.  There is a couple of functions
> > which I
> > > like in ADOdb - namely Get{Insert,Update}SQL and Prepare.
> > > 
> > > How would the option be implemented?
> > > 
> > 
> > suggestion:
> > a selectable variable
> > $GLOBALS['phpgw_info']['server']['db_abstraction'] in header.inc.php
> > 
> > the adodb_lite would reside in its one catalog 
> 
> <snip />
> 
> This ok, but we would have to make sure apps and the api aren't using
> ADOdb calls.  In this case we might as well just use adodb_lite.  If
> ADOdb is really a lot better, then we should stick with it, if not we
> might as well switch.
> 

I agree - I don't know if adodb_lite is that much better - but this way we 
would have "one foot on the ground" - without breaking anything while testing 
the new library.

Sigurd