Re: CLSQL-USQL

> > I personally think that the loop extensions are nice to have. Given
> > SBCL's relation to CMUCL it shouldn't be too hard to make the
> > extensions available there. Also, there is my code (which I myself got
> > from Xanalys support) for a LispWorks loop extension in Paul Foley's
> > BerkeleyDB package. This could be used as a basis for LW. So we'd have
> > four implementation covered already.

I kept the loop extension for precisely that reason: it is nice to have on
cmucl/scl and hopefully can be extended to other lisp implementations.
Also, for what its worth, it is in the CommonSQL API.

> I think as CLSQL grows and people want to use the most advanced features
> available in their platforms, there may be more feature fragmentation
> due to the differences in SQL backends.

I would like to think that the various RDBMS would gradually converge
towards conformity with the SQL standard which would help combat feature
fragmentation.

> Or, like the recently added SQLite backend, which doesn't support views
> or transactions.

The SQLite backend does support views and transactions. MySQL doesn't
support views (at least in Version 4) and I couldn't get transactions
working properly -- everything seems to just autocommit. It probably needs
some configuration but I don't really use MySQL so I didn't spend too much
time trying to figure this out.

Cheers,
Marcus