Re: [CLSQL-Help] Re: CLSQL-USQL

Eduardo Mu=F1oz wrote:
> 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 :)

Exciting names are good, I welcome suggestions. Descriptive names,
though, are more important to be. Yes, CLSQL is exactly a sql
command-based layer with some high-level mapping operation.  What's
important, I think, is to support existing CLSQL users who want a SQL
command-based layer without object representation. In the current
directory hierarchcy, this high-level interface it is named
"sql". But, clsql-sql seems a bit lacking in description.

Kevin