Re: CLSQL integration of CLSQL-USQL

Edi Weitz wrote:

>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:
>>
>>...
>>    
>>
>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.
>
I agree as well.  My intention was always to try to steer towards a 
cl-sql backend, and I have no interest in forking the project.  I'm 
asking for input more on the issue of whether we would like to maintain 
uncommonsql as a common-lisp.net project (which would depend upon 
cl-sql), or would it be best to simply have it absorbed into cl-sql.  
Kevin integrated the latest usql from the community very quickly, and 
the inclusion of that code doesn't seem to overly bloat the clsql code, 
and the community seems to support that decision, so I too see no reason 
to maintain a separate project.

I'll look to the cl-sql community for any future involvement with usql.  
Thanks for you great work Marcus, Kevin and any others that may have 
been involved.

Anthony W. Juckel