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

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 09:09:44 +0100 (BST), Marcus Pearce <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

FWIW, I completely agree with Marcus. Layering UncommonSQL atop CLSQL
which itself is using UFFI seems the best way to go - something that I
at least have been waiting for.

Just my EUR 0.02.

Edi.