On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Peter Bex
<address@hidden> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 12:29:40PM -0700, YC wrote:
> URI is definitely an interesting approach. I originally wanted to use a
> connection string like ODBC, but realized that since I am using DBI to be
> more than just for RDBMS (I have a memcached driver and a filepath driver)
> and the key/value pairs is not fixed, so it becomes a situation where the
> underlying driver will dictate the key/value pairs, so I just bypass the
> need to parse the connection string (and user's need to format such string)
> and let the underlying driver call the shot.
I don't understand; doesn't an URI have the same problem as a connection
string? You still need to parse the individual components from it and
pass them to the driver (possibly constructing another db-specific
connection string)
Correct - I was just explaining my rationale on why I did not take such an approach.