This should tell you that no one is interested in continuing work on this module.
DBI 1.14 came out June 14, 2000 and there is a book written about it. That tells me Bunce, et al, are still continuing work on this module.
still labeled as "experimental" or "incomplete" and that it certainly is
Patches speak louder than words.
Cheers,
KM | [reply] |
This sounds very much like one person's opinions. There are huge numbers of people using DBI out there and many more who are working on improving both DBI itself or the DBD modules. And then there are all the useful DBIx modules which add functionality to DBI-driven scripts.
I don't see it going away any day soon.
Oh... and your stuff about Perl 6 is pure supposition
--
<http://www.dave.org.uk>
European Perl Conference - Sept 22/24 2000, ICA, London
<http://www.yapc.org/Europe/>
| [reply] |
Not to be insensitive to your perceived ideas, but initially
the DBI wasn't designed for MySQL. As great as MySQL is (or
so I've heard), the DBI was designed in a much similar fashion
as ODBC, in the sense that someone obviously needed a standard
Perl interface. True it's still sensitive to the underlying
DBMS SQL version, but that gives it some nice power over ODBC
since you can actually write optimized SQL.
My point is, you've got some strange facts, since I constantly
see posts on the dbi-users mailing list, mostly from the DBD
authors, and since I was fully unaware of Tim Bunce's
involvement with mSQL-MySQL DBD development. I would imagine
that if he was needing the mSQL and MySQL DBD, he would have
written that one first.
And finally, I doubt O'Reilly (with their finger on the ever
constant pulse of developers), would have decided to so recently
publish a book on it if it was going to die so quickly. Unlike
other book publishers, I've rarely ever seen a book come out
from them about the newest hot thing until they had a chance
to actually research the subject and provide a useful resource.
ALL HAIL BRAK!!! | [reply] |