From: Mark Blewett (boost0905_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-08 19:29:32
Jeff Garland wrote:
> Mark Blewett wrote:
>
>> dba is often used as an abbreviation of database administrator, so I
>> believe it may confuse.
>>
>
> I realize....that's why I like it...
>
>
>>
>> I haven't studied the documentation in detail but from the SOCI
>> Rationale FAQ (http://soci.sourceforge.net/doc/rationale.html)
>>
>> "The basic SOCI syntax was inspired by the Embedded SQL, which is part
>> of the SQL standard, supported by the major DB technologies and even
>> available as built-in part of the languages used in some DB-oriented
>> integrated development environments."
>>
>> I'd agree with Paul Bristow about using boost.sql.
>>
>> For me SQL implies a method of accessing a relational database and is
>> also an obvious and well know concept.
>>
>
> Well, actually this isn't a good name because SOCI isn't really an SQL
> handling library. In fact it explicitly avoids sql and focuses more on
> database access.
>
>
After reading Maciej Sobczak's very informative post I agree.
Whilst surfing wikipedia, for inspiration I stumbled across the entry
for ODBC;
"In computing <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing>, Open Database
Connectivity (ODBC) provides a standard software
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software> API
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_programming_interface> method
for using database management systems
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_management_system> (DBMS). The
designers of ODBC aimed to make it independent of programming languages
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language>, database systems,
and operating systems <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system>."
Boost Database Connectivity or boost.dbc?
>> boost.database initially sounds nice if you only work with relational
>> databases, but once you consider the mryaid of other types of databases
>> (object based, hierarchical, temporal,.dimensional...) I feel it's not
>> specific enough.
>>
>
> The reason I'm ok with dropping the 'Relational' is that relational db's the
> 80% case (or more, sadly) and folks looking for the other databases are
> specialists that will figure out in 2 seconds of document study that
> boost.dbaccess isn't for them.
>
>
I agree, but if there's a name out there which conveys what the libray
is about in a short and precise way it would surely help. However I know
choosing a name is one of the most difficult and controversial things in
software engineering!
Regards
Mark