Re: CLSQL integration of CLSQL-USQL

I've recently received the current CVS repository from the upstream 
maintainers for UncommonSQL.  I'm curious what others feel.  Would it be 
best to start up a UncommonSQL project on common-lisp.net, or should we 
just continue with what we currently have (which has now been integrated 
with cl-sql).  If the community is more interested in doing the 
development through cl-sql, there's no point setting up a 
common-lisp.net project.

I have all the files and an ok from the common-lisp.net folks to set up 
an uncommonsql project, but I won't do so if we're just merging with cl-sql.

Anthony W. Juckel

Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
> I've integrated Marcus Pearce's UncommonSQL port, CLSQL-USQL, into
> CLSQL. In discussions with Marcus and extensive rearranging of the
> CLSQL code, I've made this the default CLSQL interface. The original
> CLSQL interface is exported and available in the new CLSQL-CLASSIC
> system.
> 
> I've reworked the MOP-layer and the CommonSQL-API now works with
> Allegro. I've not yet tested with OpenMCL.
> 
> For people who have used the original, but orphaned, UncommonSQL
> library, please use the CLSQL mail lists to send feature requests, bug
> reports, and comments. The next step I'm working on is adding reader
> macro syntax support to CLSQL's do-query and map-query macros for
> further CommonSQL API compatibility. I believe Marcus has further
> CommonSQL compatibility as a good and he has written useful a TODO
> file.
> 
> The new version of CLSQL, v2.3.0, is now available for download at
> http://www.clsql.b9.com.
> 
> Kevin
> _______________________________________________
> usql-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.onshored.com/mailman/listinfo/usql-list