Re: CLSQL-USQL

Marcus Pearce wrote:
> I think this could usefully all be moved into clsql-base (or clsql-common)
> in order to remove code duplication. This package would then provide basic
> support for initialising database backends, connecting to and
> disconnecting from databases, and returning information about connected
> databases (e.g., connected-databases, status etc.).

Okay, I'll take a look at your changes to CLSQL's pool.lisp and
transaction.lisp and work on backporting those back to CLSQL and
develop an intermediate layer. Perhaps, if all of the necessary
generic functions definitions are in clsql-base, this functionality
can to moved to that existing layer.

> I think the first of these options definitely makes sense and is a safe
> bet. I am not sure about the second since I'm not sure quite how cleanly
> the CLSQL stuff could be extracted in isolation from CLSQL-USQL and
> continue to support the more advanced aspects of the functional interface
> to be loaded seperately. I guess it depends on how 'lite' clsql-lite would
> want to be.

I'll take a look. The goal of CLSQL-LITE would really be
CLSQL-CLASSIC, and perhaps that is a more apt name in any case.

> object-oriented interfaces in CLSQL-USQL. Only the SELECT function which
> is common betweent the two would need a bit of work. It seems a lot of
> people don't want the OO interface and it is also the least portable part
> of the code.

I'll look at this and see if it seems feasible.

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