From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-07 17:37:22
Austin Bingham wrote:
>>>> Boost.Database seems exactly right to me.
ow about database access abbreviated to dba -- hmm that kinda has a nice ring :-)
>>> What about BDBC - Boost Database Connectivity? (Which intentionally mirrors ODBC...)
>>> The mascot can be Twiki from Buck Rogers. :) BDBDBDBDBDB...C
>> I'm sorry to say that I got this joke. But really BDBC is an awful mouthful.
>> ..dbc might be ok.
> Whatever we pick, I think we should avoid any name that isn't pretty
> immediately clear on a quick scan. With a few exceptions (i.e. Spirit),
> you can quickly tell what a boost library does based solely on it's name.
Right, I think Boost.DatabaseAccess is pretty clear.
> So, while "database" gives a pretty good clue as to the library's purpose,
> "bdbc" or "dba" are less informative. As the list of boost libraries
> grows, I think it behooves us to avoid obfuscation and, thus, confusion.
Let me be clear that there's 2 names I'm talking about. One is the 'library'
and one is the namespace. database:: or database_access:: is too long for
normal use. Just as filesystem:: is typically more verbose than we want. So
while filesystem is indeed in namespace filesystem this is commonly aliased to
fs:: in code...I think even in the docs as I recall. So it would be nice if
there is a good abbreviation for namespace aliases that is short and clear.
db or dba both work for me.
Oh and I'm still worried about the confusion with just plain Boost.database
because archives and sandbox stuff tends to hang around forever. And although
they are in the same domain they are nothing like each other.
So I haven't heard any opinion from the authors and they are the folks that
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk