Re: CLSQL-USQL

* Kevin Rosenberg <kevin-HJRc7zDS/[email protected]>
[...]
| 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=20
|     clsql-common=20
|   * clsql-usql: the original USQL high-level interface dependind on
|     clsql-common
[...]
| 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.

This is just my humble opinion, but a name like
clsql-classic is a tad, er, uhm, boring?. I for one always
thought that clsql was low level-ish layer over sql, so maybe
a new name indicating that there is a high level layer could
be appropiate. I'm no good at marketing so I will not offer
an alternative :)

Maybe someone with a knack to give cute names to software
will chime in.


--=20
Eduardo Mu=F1oz          | (prog () 10 (print "Hello world!")
http://213.97.131.125/ |          20 (go 10))