Re: CLSQL-USQL

Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
>   - 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.

To mimimize download sizes, and perhaps to reinforce the functionality
of each layer, perhaps 3 different projects should be formed:
  * clsql-common: the first two layers combined
  * clsql-classic: the original CLSQL high-leve interface depending on 
    clsql-common 
  * clsql-usql: the original USQL high-level interface dependind on
    clsql-common

Alternatively, if the clsql-usql interface adds the original CLSQL
high-level interface, then perhaps that interface could be labeled
CLSQL and the original high-level interface could be named clsql-lite.

I don't feel strongly about the naming and the divisions of
projects. I'm just like to eliminate code duplication and support both
users who don't want the overhead of the USQL interface and as well as
users who want use both the original and USQL interfaces in the same
application.

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