Re: [boost] SOCI 2.2.0 - The C++ Database Access Library

From: Mark Blewett (boost0905_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-08 19:29:32

Jeff Garland wrote:
> Mark Blewett wrote:
>   
>> dba is often used as an abbreviation of database administrator, so I 
>> believe it may confuse.
>>     
>
> I realize....that's why I like it...
>
>   
>>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> Well, actually this isn't a good name because SOCI isn't really an SQL 
> handling library.  In fact it explicitly avoids sql and focuses more on 
> database access.
>
>   
After reading Maciej Sobczak's very informative post I agree.

Whilst surfing wikipedia, for inspiration I stumbled across the entry 
for ODBC;

"In computing <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing>, Open Database 
Connectivity (ODBC) provides a standard software 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software> API 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_programming_interface> method 
for using database management systems 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_management_system> (DBMS). The 
designers of ODBC aimed to make it independent of programming languages 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language>, database systems, 
and operating systems <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system>."

Boost Database Connectivity  or boost.dbc?
>> 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 
>> specific enough.
>>     
>
> The reason I'm ok with dropping the 'Relational' is that relational db's the 
> 80% case (or more, sadly) and folks looking for the other databases are 
> specialists that will figure out in 2 seconds of document study that 
> boost.dbaccess isn't for them.
>
>   
I agree, but if there's a name out there which conveys what the libray 
is about in a short and precise way it would surely help. However I know 
choosing a name is one of the most difficult and controversial things in 
software engineering!

Regards
Mark