[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: MDB library naming conflict
Howard Chu writes:
> This is basically a continuation of this thread
> 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.