[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: MDB library naming conflict
What about just memorydb or memdb?
T +44 (0) 1224 279484
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 1224 824887
Open Source. Open Solutions(tm).
Suretec Systems is a limited company registered in Scotland. Registered
number: SC258005. Registered office: 24 Cormack Park, Rothienorman, Inverurie,
Aberdeenshire, AB51 8GL.
Subject to disclaimer at http://www.suretecgroup.com/disclaimer.html
Do you know we have our own VoIP provider called SureVoIP? See
On 1 Dec 2012, at 19:21, Hallvard Breien Furuseth
> 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.