Date: 2006-12-07 17:49:51
From: Austin Bingham <abingham_at_[hidden]>
> 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.
> 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.
Upon reflection, I think you're right. In which case I change my vote to "database_access". This really isn't too long compared to existing Boost libraries (e.g., "compressed_pair", "special_functions", "program_options") and it gives a clearer picture of what the library is about.
James Jones Administrative Data Mgmt.
Webmaster 375 Raritan Center Pkwy, Suite A
Data Architect Edison, NJ 08837
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk