From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-07 18:15:58
Paul A Bristow wrote:
>>> 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.
> But rather long :-(
Not when abbreviated to dba.
> How about Boost.DataAccess and boost::dataaccess?
No, I think the 'base' is important here. DataAccess might include xml files,
but the library doesn't do that.
> Or even my original suggestion Boost.Access and boost::access?
> I suggested it somewhat mischeviously, but the more I think about it, the
> more I like it. One might even access Microsoft Access
> (TM) with it?
Even less context then DataAccess. Access leaves me thinking, Access to what?
I thing database needs to be spelled out somewhere in the name otherwise we've
lost something. If I were getting picky I'd want to see the word 'Relational'
in there b/c the library can't access object databases.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk