Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:100783 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 64749 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2017 09:34:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Sep 2017 09:34:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk designates 185.153.204.204 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 185.153.204.204 mail4.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [185.153.204.204] ([185.153.204.204:60173] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 8F/23-34114-0C07BC95 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 05:34:57 -0400 Received: (qmail 27332 invoked by uid 89); 27 Sep 2017 09:34:53 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 27326, pid: 27329, t: 0.0434s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52/d:10677 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.7?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@81.138.11.136) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 27 Sep 2017 09:34:53 -0000 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <25903b1e0fc5a726e44b1e3a5ab4aec4@bohwaz.net> <86cad23e-a50b-515e-bc94-f98f813f1b05@beccati.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:34:53 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <86cad23e-a50b-515e-bc94-f98f813f1b05@beccati.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Implement SQLite "openBlob" feature in PDO From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) 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