From: Mark Blewett (boost0905_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-07 19:02:18
Jeff Garland wrote:
> Paul A Bristow wrote:
>>> Right, I think Boost.DatabaseAccess is pretty clear.
>> But rather long :-(
> Not when abbreviated to dba.
dba is often used as an abbreviation of database administrator, so I
believe it may confuse.
>> 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.
I haven't studied the documentation in detail but from the SOCI
Rationale FAQ (http://soci.sourceforge.net/doc/rationale.html)
"The basic SOCI syntax was inspired by the Embedded SQL, which is part
of the SQL standard, supported by the major DB technologies and even
available as built-in part of the languages used in some DB-oriented
integrated development environments."
I'd agree with Paul Bristow about using boost.sql.
For me SQL implies a method of accessing a relational database and is
also an obvious and well know concept.
boost.database initially sounds nice if you only work with relational
databases, but once you consider the mryaid of other types of databases
(object based, hierarchical, temporal,.dimensional...) I feel it's not
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk