Re: [usql-list] CLSQL integration of CLSQL-USQL

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Anthony W. Juckel wrote:

> 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.

Either way, it would seem silly to divide community resources by putting
time and energy into maintaining and developing two projects which are so
similar (both in origin and functionality). My feeling is that there are
several advantages in focusing community support on the CLSQL port of
UncommonSQL. First, there would seem to be a number of advantages of using
the CLSQL backends:

  o the UncommonSQL Oracle and Mysql backends did not seem to receive much
    attention from the developers;
  o the CLSQL backends have been developed, improved, added to (e.g.,
    the aodbc, postgresql-socket and sqlite backends) and continue to be
    actively maintained and developed;
  o the CLSQL backends use UFFI to achieve portability across a wider
    range of Common Lisp implementations;

In addition, the port of UncommonSQL which is now part of CLSQL has a
number of factors weighing in its favour:

  o improved conformance to the CommonSQL spec;
  o reorganised file structure to reflect component functionality more
    clearly and logically;
  o ported to Allegro (thanks to Kevin Rosenberg) and improved support for
    Lispworks and SBCL with OpenMCL targeted;
  o lots of bug fixes, improvements and cruft-removal.

On the other hand, I'm sure that much has been improved in the upstream
version of UncommonSQL since version 1.2.1. Perhaps it would be possible
to merge these developments into CLSQL? Would you be able to summarise
what has changed?

Cheers,
Marcus