Re: CLSQL-USQL

Edi Weitz wrote:
> As I said I think it would be cleaner if CLSQL-USQL were a separate
> project which requires CLSQL. Whether it's maintained on b9.com by
> Kevin or on common-lisp.net by someone else I don't care. Both are
> fine solutions for me.

I think being able to use both high-level interfaces in the same
application has some benefit. I'm thinking of 3 layers:

  - db-backends in the low-level CLSQL API
     already writtin in CLSQL and used by CLSQL-USQL.
     Perhaps dropping the not-completely ported to UFFI
     Oracle backend. Does anyone want an Oracle backend?
  - mid-level API for transaction and connection-pools.
     need to merge CLSQL and CLSQL-USQL transactions and
     separate CLSQL's connection pools to form this new layer. Changes
     to CLSQL and CLSQL-USQL to use this new API.
  - parallel high-level interfaces "CLSQL Classic" and "USQL Classic"
     which both use the common lower-level APIs and which can coexist
     in the same application.

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