[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: MDB library naming conflict

Howard Chu writes:
> This is basically a continuation of this thread
> http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/201111/msg00063.html
> I think liblmdb for the name of the library file is fine. Do we need to
> change any other instances of "mdb" as well, or can we just let them slide?

Need, no, but my vote is for changing it throughout.  Failing that,
changing the user-visible stuff.  File extensions, program names,

For consistency, and taking the opportunity to escape the Goolge(mdb)
hits for Microsoft's MDB.  "back-mdb" doesn't hit those, but "database
mdb" and the .mdb file extension do.

Also, what is it going to be called now?  It now seems to be the
Lightning mdb -- as opposed to the Microsoft mdb?  Yet an mdb isn't some
well-established term, even if we've talked about it a lot lately.  So
I'm not exactly sure what the stand-alone name "mdb" is needed for at
this point.  Unless that can be fixed by just phrasing things a bit
differenlty than I just did.