Re: CLSQL-USQL

Marcus Pearce wrote:
> Right -- I've now got the port of UncommonSQL 1.2.1 running on the CLSQL
> backends. I've called the project CLSQL-USQL for the time being and it

Congratulations!

> More generally, any feedback, comments, bug reports, patches, extensions
> to other Common Lisp implementations supported by CLSQL (Allegro, OpenMCL
> and Scieneer Common Lisp) would be very welcome. See the TODO file.

I'll work on this more this week, but here are a few notes from a very
brief initial review:

1. As expected, Allegro has some trouble with the MOP usage. Given my
experience with http://hyperobject.b9.com and http://kmrcl.b9.com
which have MOP-compatibility layers, I'll be glad to work on
cross-implementation compatible MOP for CLSQL-USQL.

2. transactions.lisp has some duplication with CLSQL's
transactions.lisp. I think that adding a "mid-level" compatibility
layer to CLSQL for transactions and connection-pools makes
sense. Then, the classic high-level CLSQL interface and the high-level
USQL interface can use the same code as well as use of those
interfaces could co-exist in the same application. I'll be glad to
work on this.

3. I notice loop-extension.lisp is included. To the degree that
CLSQL-USQL migh strive for cross-implementation compatibility, using
such loop extensions in an application would be counter-productive.

-- 
Kevin Rosenberg
kevin-HJRc7zDS/[email protected]